Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘gay marriage’

Supreme Court to Review Case of a Baker Told He Must Bake Gay Wedding Cake


Reported by  Ryan T. Anderson / / June 26, 2017 /

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-review-case-baker-fined-not-baking-gay-wedding-cake/

A lower court ruling had forced Jack Phillips to choose between obeying the government and following his religious beliefs. (Photo: iStock Photos)

Today was a good day for religious freedom at the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision, the court upheld religious liberty by saying that a state cannot exclude a church from a public program just because it’s a church. That was the big case at the court.

In a less-noted move, the court also agreed to review (“granted cert” in the legal jargon) a case about religious liberty, free speech, and government coercion to support gay marriage. The case involves Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and whether he must create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, even if doing so violates his beliefs. 

The case goes back to 2012, when a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception back home in Colorado, a state that in 2006 constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Phillips declined to create a wedding cake, citing his faith: “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for,” he said.

The couple later obtained a wedding cake with rainbow-colored filling (illustrating the expressive nature of event cake-baking) from another bakery.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state, alleging violations of Colorado’s public accommodation law.

Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled against the bakery on Dec. 6, 2013, concluding that Phillips violated the law by declining service to the couple “because of their sexual orientation.”

Phillips objected to this characterization and responded that he would happily sell the couple his baked goods for any number of occasions, but creating a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe, thereby violating his freedom to run his business in accordance with his faith.

Phillips is right. As Sherif Girgis and I explain in our new book from Oxford University Press, “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination,” acting on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife does not in itself entail “discriminating” on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, part of the problem is that liberals are simply calling anything they disagree with “discrimination.”

This overbroad definition of “discrimination” is part of what creates the problems for the free exercise of religion and free speech. And here a pattern holds: Legally coercing professionals serves no serious need, but works serious harms.

Conservative wedding providers are few and dwindling due to market pressures—and most important, they don’t refuse to serve LGBT patrons. In case after case, bakers have had no problem designing cakes for gay customers for every other occasion. It’s just that an exceedingly small number can’t in good conscience use their talents to help celebrate same-sex weddings by baking a cake topped with two grooms or two brides—or, as in this case, with rainbow filling.

Coercing these cultural dissidents has vanishingly small effects on the supply of products for any given couple, but it impinges seriously on particular vendors’ freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion. If any harm remains in leaving these wedding professionals free, it is only the tension we all face in living with people who disagree with us on the most personal matters.

As Girgis and I explain in our new book, America is in a time of transition. The Supreme Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. Now, the Supreme Court has the chance to protect the right to dissent and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always previously believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.

Such a ruling would help achieve civil peace amid disagreement. It would protect pluralism and the rights of all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Ryan T. Anderson/

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research.

The United States of…Not America


waving flagAuthored By: David Barton | Posted: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:40 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://www.afa.net/the-stand/government/2017/02/the-united-states-ofnot-america/

Here’s a simple question: “What is America’s first-protected, most-important, and longest-cherished politically-protected right?” The answer? The rights of religious conscience. But the Supreme Court of Washington State just became another in the line of recent courts who know nothing of, or don’t care about this inalienable right.

The early colonists arriving in America came largely seeking this right. In Europe, the governments consistently told them how to practice their faith, and punished them if they did not do what the government wanted; but the religious-minded colonists believed that no one but God could tell them how to practice their faith.

The Pilgrims journeyed to America in 1620 to escape the hounding government persecution in England, as did 20,000 Puritans in the 1630s. In 1632, government-persecuted Catholics fled to America; in 1654, persecuted Jews from Portugal; in 1680, persecuted Quakers arrived here, as did persecuted Anabaptists from Germany in 1683, 400,000 persecuted Protestants from France in 1685; and so forth. These settlers, having been punished for exercising their rights of religious conscience, promptly enshrined these rights in their own governing documents, including Rhode Island in 1640, Maryland in 1649, Jersey in 1664, Carolina in 1665, Pennsylvania in 1682, and so forth. As John Quincy Adams affirmed, “The transcendent and overruling principle of the first settlers of New England was conscience.”

In 1776 when America separated from Great Britain, the rights of religious conscience were once again promptly preserved in the new state constitutions and then in the federal Constitution. According to the Founding Fathers, this was one of the most important rights they protected:

“No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience.” “[O]ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted.” “It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences.” Thomas Jefferson

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” James Madison, Signer of the Constitution

“The rights of conscience and private judgment…are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left.” John Jay, an Author of the Federalist Papers and original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court

“Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.” “The state [does not] have any concern in the matter. For in what manner doth it affect society . . . in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?” William Livingston, signer of the U. S. Constitution

Based on this long tradition, today . . .

Conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars;

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools;

The Amish are not required to complete the standard twelve years of education;

Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws;

Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work on Saturday;

And there are many additional examples.

It was because the rights of religious conscience were so important that they were specifically protected in the constitutions of the individual states—such as that of Washington, which declares:

Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual; and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion . . .

But despite the clarity of this clause, we now get word that the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that Baronelle Stutzman, a devout and pious Christian florist… was bound by state law to use her artistic talents to design floral arrangements to celebrate what she viewed as an immoral event: a gay wedding. The pretext for overriding the florist’s rights to free speech and religious liberty was Washington’s so-called “public accommodations law,” which required the owner, Barronelle Stutzman, to provide goods and services to customers “regardless” of their sexual orientation.Big Gay Hate Machine

Several things are wrong with this decision.

First, Baronelle has been economically-fined and governmentally-coerced to use her talents and skills in a way that violates her sincerely-held religious beliefs.

Second, the explicit wording of the Washington State constitution has been completely ignored by the Washington State Supreme Court. In essence, a Washington state court has deemed the Washington state constitution to be unconstitutional, just because they don’t want to uphold its provisions.

Third, the court elevated a state law (their “public accommodations law”) above the state constitution; but constitutions always trump statutory laws—always.

Fourth, John Adams described us as “a government of laws and not of men,” but decisions like this make us just the opposite: the personal predilections of judges are now routinely placed above constitutional provisions duly enacted by the people.

Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson rejoiced that “the comparison of our government with those of Europe are like a comparison of heaven and hell,” but this happy distinction is now disappearing. Because of this ruling (and dozens more like it in recent years), America is becoming more and more like the tyrannical governments of Europe that millions of early colonists fled in order to be free from the government persecution of their inalienable rights of religious conscience.amen

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

David Barton Author of numerous best selling books and Founder and President of WallBuilders More Articles
 

Federal judge orders Kentucky clerk and her staff to court


waving flagAssociated Press

Picture1
MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — A county clerk who invoked “God’s authority” as she defied the U.S. Supreme Court yet again on gay marriage Tuesday refused to resign after a federal judge summoned her to explain why she should not held in contempt.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis turned away several gay and lesbian couples who sought marriage licenses — some for a fifth time — even though the Supreme Court turned away her last-ditch appeal the night before. “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision,” she said through her lawyers. “I was elected by the people to serve as the County Clerk. I intend to continue to serve the people of Rowan County, but I cannot violate my conscience,” her statement said.Picture2

For David Moore and David Ermold, it was their third rejection at the courthouse. Davis, facing the couples and a packed crowd of reporters and activists, told them to leave. “We’re not leaving until we have a license,” Ermold responded. “Then you’re going to have a long day,” Davis replied.Kentucky county clerk refuses to issue same-sex marriage …

Davis then retreated into her inner office, where closed blinds sheltered her from the cameras and rival demonstrations outside.

“Praise the Lord!” her supporters shouted. “Stand your ground!”

Other activists yelled “Do your job!” They called Davis a bigot and said the government is not a theocracy. The sheriff moved everyone to the courthouse lawn, where each side tried to out-do the other with chanting, hymn-singing and sign-waving.Big Gay Hate Machine

Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses in June after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation.Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis listens to a customer …

Four couples — two gay, two straight — then sued to force her to fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith, or step aside. Other couples also sued. A federal order to issue the licenses was upheld in appellate court. Her lawyers with Liberty Counsel then asked the Supreme Court for what they called “asylum for her conscience.”

After the full court declined to intervene Monday night, removing any remaining legal ground for Davis’ position, the couples decided to try again, only to be turned away. For James Yates and Will Smith Jr., it was their fifth rejection. “It’s just too hard right now,” Yates said, choking back tears and holding hands with Smith as they rushed to their car.Picture3

Despite the delays, the couples’ lawyers asked the judge to punish her with fines, not jail.

Davis served as her mother’s deputy for 27 years before she was elected as a Democrat to succeed her in November. Davis’ own son is on the staff. As an elected official, Davis can’t be fired from her $80,000-a-year job. Impeachment would have to wait until the Legislature’s regular session next year, or a costly special session.

Davis refused to concede her religious freedom argument even after U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered Davis and her six deputy clerks to appear at 11 a.m. on Thursday at the federal court in Ashland. Davis has said previously that four of her deputies share her beliefs, one was ambiguous and one did not have a problem with issuing licenses to same-sex couples.

Outside, activists lined up on either side of the courthouse entrance.

“At the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court,” said Randy Smith, leading the group supporting Davis.

Ermold and Moore, together for 17 years, cried and swayed as they walked out to chants from the clerk’s supporters. “I feel sad, I feel devastated,” Ermold said. “I feel like I’ve been humiliated on such a national level, I can’t even comprehend it.”Picture5

The clerk’s husband, Joe Davis, came by to check on his wife. He said she has received death threats but remains committed to her faith and is “standing for God.” As for himself, he said he believes in the Second Amendment: “I’m an old redneck hillbilly, that’s all I’ve got to say. Don’t come knocking on my door.” He pointed to the gay rights protesters gathered on the courthouse lawn and said: “They want us to accept their beliefs and their ways. But they won’t accept our beliefs and our ways.”Gaystopo logo

___

Associated Press writer Adam Beam in Lexington, Kentucky, contributed.

kentucy
 burke SCOTUS GIANT In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Rainbow-flag Christians quizzed by pastor


waving flagPosted By -NO AUTHOR- On 07/10/2015

Article reblogged from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/rainbow-flag-christians-quizzed-by-pastor

gay_march_rainbow_flagIn the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s creation of “same-sex marriage,” a pastor’s list of questions for Christians who support the decision is going viral. It’s been shared on Facebook nearly 400,000 times and tweeted more than 3,000. Pastor Kevin DeYoung’s list of questions for rainbow flag-waving Christians includes: “As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin and Luther failed to grasp?”

DeYoung’s questions have been posted on the website for The Gospel Coalition, which describes itself as a “broadly Reformed network of churches.” It “encourages and educates” current and next-generation Christian leaders by “advocating gospel centered principles and practices that glorify the Savior and do good to those for whom he shed his life’s blood.”Picture2

DeYoung is senior pastor of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan.

He says the court’s ruling “hurts.”

Christian apologist Josh McDowell’s “Evidence for Christianity” addresses the need in society today for a solid body of persuasive evidence about Christianity. It answers the hard-to-answer questions.

“Making legal and theological decisions based on what makes people feel better is part of what got us into this mess in the first place,” he wrote. “There are many reasons for our lamentation, from fear that religious liberties will be taken away to worries about social ostracism and cultural marginalization.”

But he said the biggest hurt comes from Christians who give “their hearty ‘Amen’ to a practice we still think is a sin and a decision we think is bad for our country.”

Among the questions he asks: “How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?” and “What Bible verses led you to change your mind?”

He also wants to know how a positive case can be made from Scripture “that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing.”

“What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?”

Why, he asks, did Jesus “reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?”

“Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?”

“What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?”

Specific to the United States, he asks, “Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?”

Once the biblical standard is abandoned, he asks, “Should marriage be limited to only two people?” and “On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?”

And addressing the responsibility of churches, he asks, “What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?”

DeYoung said the questions “aren’t meant to be snarky or merely rhetorical.”

“They are sincere, if pointed, questions that I hope will cause my brothers and sisters with the new rainbow-themed avatars to slow down and think about the flag you’re flying.”

 


OrdinanceAgainstRainbowFlagDraftedinLouisianna070713For evangelicals who lament last Friday’s Supreme Court decision, it’s been a hard few days. We aren’t asking for emotional pity, nor do I suspect many people are eager to give us any. Our pain is not sacred. Making legal and theological decisions based on what makes people feel better is part of what got us into this mess in the first place. Nevertheless, it still hurts.

There are many reasons for our lamentation, from fear that religious liberties will be taken away to worries about social ostracism and cultural marginalization. But of all the things that grieve us, perhaps what’s been most difficult is seeing some of our friends, some of our family members, and some of the folks we’ve sat next to in church giving their hearty “Amen” to a practice we still think is a sin and a decision we think is bad for our country. It’s one thing for the whole nation to throw a party we can’t in good conscience attend. It’s quite another to look around for friendly faces to remind us we’re not alone and then find that they are out there jamming on the dance floor. We thought the rainbow was God’s sign (Gen. 9:8-17).

If you consider yourself a Bible-believing Christian, a follower of Jesus whose chief aim is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, there are important questions I hope you will consider before picking up your flag and cheering on the sexual revolution. These questions aren’t meant to be snarky or merely rhetorical. They are sincere, if pointed, questions that I hope will cause my brothers and sisters with the new rainbow themed avatars to slow down and think about the flag you’re flying.

1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?

2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?

4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?

5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?

6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?

8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?

9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?

10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?

11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?

12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?

13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?

14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?

15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?

16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad?

17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?

18. How would you define marriage?

19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married?

20. Should marriage be limited to only two people?

21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?

22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license?

23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage?

24. If not, why not?

25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?

26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?

27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?

28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?

29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?

30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?

31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?

32. If “love wins,” how would you define love?

33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?

34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?

35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?

36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?

37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?

38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?

39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?

40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?

Food for thought, I hope. At the very least, something to chew on before swallowing everything the world and Facebook put on our plate.

Note: An earlier version of this post had the questions in paragraph format rather than enumerated. The content is still the same. Readers interested in studying what the Bible teaches about homosexuality may be interested in checking out my new book on that theme.

Leftist Giant called Tyranny Big Gay Hate Machine freedom combo 2

A detailed explanation of why Christians don’t accept gay marriage


waving flagPublished by: Dan CalabreseDan Calabrese on Monday June 29th, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.caintv.com/a-detailed-explanation-of-why

Image Credit: Keoni Cabral via Flickr

For those genuinely interested in understanding.

Given the nature of the discussion following the gay marriage ruling last week, one thing that’s clear to me as a Christian who opposes gay marriage is that very few secular people – and sadly, by no means all Christians – really understand why Christians take the position we do. That’s why there is so much being said that doesn’t really reflect what Christians think. Some say we hate or we judge. Others say we are against love. Some think we’re threatened by homosexuals. Some think we object too vociferously because we secretly want to join their ranks. Some even claim we don’t think God loves gay people.

None of that is true, but maybe it’s understandable that you jump to those conclusions if you’re not familiar with the Bible or with the details of Christian doctrine.

What I want to do here is lay out an explanation for the basis of Christian opposition to gay marriage. The intent here is not to convince you if you don’t agree, although I’d be glad if I did. If you come away from this feeling that you better understand the Christian position, but still disagreeing with it, then I’ve accomplished my goal.

First, a few caveats: This explanation is going to reflect my particular denominational bent, which is Pentecostal. I don’t think the substance of what I say will differ in a substantive way from any Bible-believing denomination, but I recognize, for instance, that Baptists or Lutherans may not put as much emphasis on the supernatural as I do. Noted. I still think they would mostly endorse the substance of how I’m going to explain this. Also, my target audience here is people with a genuine interest in understanding. The fire-breathing ideologue who is simply spoiling for a fight about anything and everything is going to do what he or she always does. That’s not my problem.

Finally, I understand that some of you don’t believe in God or in anything spiritual, and for you, all of this is absurd on its face. You’re still welcome to gain an understanding if you’d like, even though I recognize you will not accept the basic premise behind any of it.

With that said, let’s start by establishing a basic point about the Bible. The Christian (present company included) believes that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God. The various writers wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so we don’t believe it was merely “written by men,” and we also believe that God has protected His Word over the course of centuries with new translations to reflect modern language – by choosing godly men and women to lead those translation processes. That’s why, when we cite the Bible, we treat it as authoritative.

Also, since every writer of the Bible was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it doesn’t matter when people argue that “Jesus never said anything” about this or that. Just because an issue isn’t specifically referenced in the red-letter words of Jesus (although the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman actually is, which we’ll get to shortly) doesn’t mean Scripture had nothing authoritative to say on the matter.

Now, let’s establish beyond any doubt what Scripture says about homosexual sex. I have five passages for you, starting with Romans 1:24-28:

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

This passage clearly establishes that God intended a natural order for how we would receive and engage in the gift of sexual activity, and it likewise establishes that homosexual sex is outside that established order. It also establishes that there is a penalty for this. Loving Christian people want to see gay people spared of the pain of that penalty.Picture2

Next, let’s look at Mark 10:2-9:

The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.

And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”

And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees about divorce – one of their typically pathetic attempts to trap him – and in the course of answering, Jesus lays out God’s clear plan for marriage, affirming that it is indeed between a man and a woman. There are people who argue implausibly that Jesus only phrased it this way because, in that day and age, He couldn’t have conceived of gay marriage. That’s transparent nonsense. As the Son of God, Jesus knew everything that would ever happen. And Jesus introduced lots of concepts into His teaching that were radical in His day. If He had been OK with gay marriage, this was the perfect opportunity to say so. Instead, he affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Next, let’s look at Leviticus 20:10-18:

10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. 11 The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. 12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall beupon them. 13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their bloodshall be upon them. 14 If a man marries a woman and her mother, it iswickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you. 15 If a man mates with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them. 17 ‘If a man takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness. He shall bear his guilt. 18 If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people.

Now I realize many will focus on the “put to death” aspect of this, and that’s where you have to understand the difference between moral law and ceremonial law. A lot of people cite prohibitions against things like eating shellfish as evidence that Leviticus is just full of random nonsense. No. Those are laws specifically for the Israelites about remaining ceremonial clean for entering the Temple and offering sacrifices to God. Those are ceremonial laws.

The death penalty proscribed for these sins is likewise a penalty under ceremonial law, but make no mistake, God views the actions described as moral sins, and the reason I included so many other examples is to establish that there is such a thing as sexual morality, and there are limits to it. God intends sex to be enjoyed within marriage between a man and a woman who are not closely related to each other, and He is very stern with those who engage in sexual immorality – as defined in great detail in this passage. That’s because God establishes that when you unite with someone physically, you also unite with them spiritually – and He only wants you to unite spiritually with one person. Your spouse. Of the opposite sex. Taking on the spiritual iniquity of others with whom you were never intended to unite is a very dangerous game, and God is trying to warn you against doing so.Picture3

Next, 1 Timothy 1:8-11:

8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

Just to be clear, sodomites are those who engage in sodomy (referenced in other translations as those who practice homosexuality) and fornicators are those who engage in sex outside of marriage.

Finally, James 1:14-15:

14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

I included that last passage not just to show that desires of the flesh are sinful, but also to show that sin has ultimate spiritual consequence, which is torment in your life and ultimately death.

Now, I know that’s a lot of Scripture, so let me pull it together. Every one of us is born into sin. For the homosexual who says, “I was born this way,” I will not argue. We were all born with sinful urges of our flesh. Some struggle with anger. Some struggle with heterosexual lust. Some struggle with gluttony or addiction to alcohol. And some struggle with homosexual urges. These are our desires. They come from the flesh and they war against the spirit.

God’s desire for each person is that they will repent of those desires and surrender to Him so that He can deliver them from these urges by the power of Christ. The Christian who loves as God loves certainly does not a hate another human being for having sinful desires of the flesh. We have them too. We need the power of Christ to be delivered from them. But crucially, we recognize that these urges are sinful and we want to be delivered from them so we can be in a right relationship with God, and receive the fullness of His blessings in our lives.

I understand why some Christians struggle with this. They know a gay person, or maybe have a gay family member, and they want that person to be happy. It’s enticing to accept the “love is love” argument and to believe that surely God wants that gay person to be in a loving relationship. But that argument wrongly conflates love with sex. There are a lot of different kinds of love. Hopefully you love a lot of people, but you only have sex with one person – the one to whom you’re married. If you want a gay person to know love in a romantic/sexual relationship, good, so do I. So I will pray that this person is delivered from those urges through the blood of Jesus so that he or she can find the mate of the opposite sex that God always intended for them to come together with.

For a Christian to encourage a gay person in the consummation of a gay “marriage” is to encourage their permanent indulgence in a lust of the flesh that Scripture clearly tells us God finds detestable, and to suffer all the spiritual consequences that come with that. It would be like encouraging you to go hiking down a path where we know a deadly wild animal is waiting to devour you. Far from hating you, we’re loving you by warning you of the consequences and urging you to repent – which literally means to turn back and change directions.

That’s why the Christian baker doesn’t want to bake that wedding cake, and why the Christian adoption agency doesn’t want to process those papers, and why the Christian church won’t perform the ceremony. And that’s why so many people like me won’t be cloaking our Facebook profile pictures in the rainbow colors. What we want for you is something better than your flesh is leading you to, and we’re praying for you to receive it. We’re not going to encourage you to follow the desire of your flesh instead of the light God wants to put in your spirit.

I hope that by reading this, some of you gained a better understanding of the Christian position on gay marriage, and why a Bible-believing Christian can never accept it. If you did – even if you still disagree – I did my job.

AMEN freedom combo 2

Gay Marriage Decision: A Communist Goal Realized


obama-communist-sc

By David Risselada

While I have written many articles on the topic of the 45 communist goals, it can’t be stressed enough that achieving “marriage equality” for homosexuals was definitely one of them. The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday, June 26 was no surprise to many of us, and in many ways it was used to continue the moral degradation of our society.

The Obama Administration, as surely we have all seen by now, took the pleasure of flaunting their victory by posting pictures of the White House lit up with the colors of the homosexual’s rainbow flag. This was a “stick in your face gesture” as they know that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of the homosexual agenda, and there is an agenda. This was also a symbolic gesture in the eyes of the left because they view this as the replacement of the old culture with a new one.The Persecution has Begun

It was no coincidence, in my opinion, that this gay marriage decision happened at the same time there was all-out war declared on the Confederate flag. We are after all, dealing with communists whose entire agenda revolves around breaking down the moral standards by which many of us live our lives. Make no mistake America, this ruling pushes the United States one step further away from liberty, and one step closer to all-out communism. Many people have a difficult time understanding this concept; after all, granting protection to homosexuals to marry allegedly embodies the ideals of liberty and justice for all. This is a misguided worldview, what it actually does is open the floodgates to the deprivation of humanity, as I will explain in this article. From the 45 communist goals entered in to the congressional record in 1963 –

Anyone who believes his middle finger placement is an accident is a complete moron.25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”

One of the main goals of communism has always been the destruction of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Man will not allow himself to become subservient to an all-powerful state as long as he believes in, and follows the laws of God. The Bible commands us to follow God’s law and not the ways of men, so in order to enslave the mind, belief in God must be discredited.

The communists themselves don’t care about marriage equality; the issue is used as a means of demoralizing society. In fact; it is not at all uncommon for communist regimes to brutally oppress homosexuals, if not outright murder them. Many people find themselves wondering why the left is silent as Islamonazis continue to throw gays from rooftops, and burn them alive. It would seem that any organization truly dedicated to gay rights would acknowledge these atrocities while pointing out the safety  most homosexuals enjoy in the United States.It HasNever Been About Marriage

The goal, as mentioned previously, is not to give gay people equal rights, but to demoralize society in order to make us susceptible to an all out communist takeover. In order to do this, religion must be destroyed.

Islamic_Communist_symbolismThis was admitted by one of the leaders of the gay rights movement. Homosexual activist and journalist Masha Gessen admitted in a radio interview that the goal is to destroy the institution of marriage, not to become a part of it. She admits thatthe whole argument being made to push their agenda for equality is a lie, and what they truly seek to do is destroy traditional societal values.Here is what she recently said on a radio interview: 

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. 

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.”  Illinois Family Institute

Again, this is a concept many people have a difficult time understanding. The goal is to completely remake society in the image of communism. Sadly, homosexual activists fail to realize that they are no more than “psychopolitical dupes,” or useful idiots being used to push an agenda that in the end will strip them of all humanity as well.Giant Government Compliance Officer

To understand this further we need to once again, refer to the Soviet Manual on Pyschopolitics. The whole communist agenda can be best summed up saying that they are attempting to label America as a sick society in need of mental healing. For centuries, men looked to the clergy in order to solve problems of the mind and spirit. Communists despise this because they want to rule over man, and as mentioned previously, men who follow Gods laws cannot be ruled by men.

Consider this quote from page 60 of the Soviet manual.

You must work until religion is synonymous with insanity. You must work until the officials of the city, county and state governments will not think twice before they pounce upon religious groups as public enemies.”RadicalChristianExtremist

The attack on Christianity is in full swing in almost all aspects of our culture. The homosexuals are being used in an effort to label Christians as being bigoted and homophobic while simultaneously tearing at the moral fabric of our society. Unfortunately, as many of us are well aware, the gay marriage issue is just the beginning and it is the symbolic “slippery slope” leading to the unimaginable.

In my book, “Not On My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education,” I included some text from a research paper I did while in the Masters of social work program at the University of Oklahoma. The social work agenda is big on gay rights, and in social work education the issue of heterosexual privilege is synonymous with white privilege.

Heterosexual privilege is defined as:

Benefits derived automatically by being (or being perceived as) heterosexual that are denied to gays, lesbians, bisexuals, queers and all other non-heterosexual sexual orientations.Liberalism a mental disorder 2

To be against homosexuality is now viewed as a bigoted position. Those who enjoy the benefits of marriage are now considered the oppressors of those who are allegedly being denied these privileges. This spans well beyond the scope of just gay marriage as the issue of pedophilia is making its way into the main stream. If you remember, not too long ago Rutgers-Camden professor Margo Kaplan declared that pedophilia is not a crime, rather a condition one might be born with. This is how the argument was made that homosexuality might in fact be normal. She also declare that pedophilia should be considered a human right because people who identify as having sexual orientations towards young children are often marginalized because they have to keep these orientations to themselves.will not stop

Many people have warned that the issue of gay marriage would open a floodgate; well that floodgate is indeed open.  The efforts are well underway to repeal the age of consent laws, as was the topic of my research paper, and to redefine the term pedophile with the term “minor attracted person.” The overall goal here is to normalize sex with children. In fact, in 1998 the American Psychological Association issued a report claiming that child sexual abuse was not as harmful to children as previously believed. Also, they went on to suggest that sexual relationships between men and young boys could actually develop into strong caring relationships.Head in Hands 01

Furthermore, they suggested that harmful effects from sexual abuse would only result if the child was forced into having sex with an adult, not if the child chose freely to do so. This is sick beyond comprehension; however it serves as further proof of a communist agenda.

Once again we need to refer to quote from the Soviet Manual, page 62.

Technical papers should exist as to the tremendous number of cures effected by psychiatry and psychology, and whenever possible, percentages of cures, no matter how fictitious, should be worked into legislative papers, thus forming a back ground of evidence which would immediately rebut any effort to actually discover anyone who had ever been helped by psychiatry or psychology.”squeeze into mold

What this quote is essentially admitting is that communists lie. They have subverted every aspect of our culture and submit false evidence that attempts to discredit the Judea Christian worldview and turn the minds of men towards communistic solutions, through the social sciences. Issues that can be disguised as human right struggles are being used to actually denigrate society in an effort to demoralize the nation, making us ripe for conquering.

Homosexual rights, the “black lives matter” campaign, racism, feminism and wealth inequality are all being used in this manner, and the activists pushing these issues are nothing but the proverbial “useful idiots” of our time. If we do not reverse course now, we will certainly follow the same path as other communist countries before us. Once men have become completely demoralized they no longer have a leg on which to stand to defend their nation.Party of Deciet and lies

David Risselada writes a blog called The Radical Conservative: Exposing the fallacy of liberalism/progressivism.

Article reposted from www.ForTruthsSake.com with permission.

Marxist Strategy & Communist Goals from “The Naked Communist”: Shocking!

Posted by Scott OsbornJune 7, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://joeforamerica.com/2015/06/communist-goals-naked-communist

Communist Goals from “The Naked Communist”  was read on the floor of the House of Representatives on January 10th, 1963 by U.S. Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida.

The Naked Communist was written by ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen in 1953. He describes the Marxist strategy during the Cold War.Picture4

Maybe we need someone to read these communist goals again. Send this article to your Senators and Congressmen and ask them to read this on the floor of both houses.

Communist Goals from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen

  1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
  2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
  3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
  4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
  5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
  6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
  7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
  8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
  9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
  10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
  11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
  12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
  13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
  14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
  15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
  16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
  17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
  18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
  19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
  20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
  21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
  22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
  23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
  24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
  25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
  26. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
  27. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
  28. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
  29. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
  30. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
  31. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
  32. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
  33. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
  34. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
  35. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
  36. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
  37. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
  38. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
  39. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
  40. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
  41. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
  42. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
  43. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
  44. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

 

The Naked Communist was written by ex-FBI agent Cleon Skousen in 1953.  He describes the Marxist strategy during the Cold War.

President Ronald Reagan said of the book: “No one is better qualified to discuss the threat to this nation from communism. You will be alarmed, you will be informed and you’ll be glad you heard him.”

 

freedom combo 2

THAT’S SO GAY: White House Lights Up in Rainbow Colors, Satan Does a High-Five


waving flagPosted on June 27, 2015

Screen Shot 2015-06-27 at 8.13.12 AM

The Obama administration is having a gay ‘ole time with the gay marriage ruling. Check out some of their Tweets and video from last night after the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage:

tw01 tw02 Big Gay Hate Machine muslim-obama burke freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: