Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘same sex marriage’

Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Christian Baker Who Refused To Bake Cake for Same-Sex Wedding



disclaimerReported By Jack Davis | June 4, 2018 at 8:19am

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Christian Colorado baker cannot be forced to make a cake for a same-sex marriage when the ceremony violates his religious principles.praise-the-lord-png

Monday’s 7-2 decision reversed a Colorado court’s ruling against baker Jack Phillips, who in 2012 refused to bake a cake for gay couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins. The decision focused on the initial ruling against Phillips from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and left untouched the broader issue of whether professionals who oppose same-sex marriage can be compelled to provide goods and services for those ceremonies, USA Today reported.

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” the majority opinion said, noting the broader battle in which this case was one part. “These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority decision, while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” Kennedy wrote, according to The Hill.

“While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other member of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”

The case presented “difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services,” Kennedy wrote.

“The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment,” he wrote. 

Kennedy said Colorado failed that test.

“Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions,” Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy noted that the case does represent a collision of rights, according to The Washington Post.

“The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws, he wrote. “Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here.”

Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan voted with the majority along with Justices Kennedy, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts.

Phillips had lost every round of his lengthy legal fight until Monday. Phillips said the question was not about the customers but rather about violating his own principles.

“It’s not about turning away these customers, it’s about doing a cake for an event — a religious sacred event — that conflicts with my conscience,” he said, according to Fox News.

The Trump administration supported Phillips’ legal claims.
please likeand share and leave a comment

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.

Humanist to Church: Drop Bible as Moral Guide


Authored by Dr. Michael Brown Guest Blogger | Tuesday, May 2, 2017 @ 11:50 AM

Humanist to Church: Drop Bible as Moral Guide / Humanist stumbles in his defense of openly gay United Methodist bishop Karen Oliveto.

What is lacking is the understanding of human beings (including Naff), which is exactly why we need God’s Word.- Dr. Michael Brown

A Huffington Post Humanist Urges the Church to Stop Using the Bible as a Moral Guide. It’s one thing when a humanist attacks the Bible. That’s expected. It’s another thing when a humanist attacks a Christian denomination for using the Bible as a moral guide. But that’s exactly what humanist author Clay Farris Naff did on the Huffington Post on April 29th.

Naff was upset that the highest court of the Methodist Church struck down the consecration of Bishop Karen Oliveto, since her only infraction was being married to another woman. How, he wondered, could the church punish her for love?

He writes, “To anyone free of ancient prejudices, the injustice of condemning Oliveto is plain. How can love be wrong? How can love enfolded in commitment and fidelity be wrong?”

The answers are simple and self-evident. Love is not always right, even when it’s “enfolded in commitment and fidelity.”

A father may love his adult daughter in a romantic way, but that doesn’t make the relationship right. Twin brothers in their 30s may love each other in a sexual way, but that doesn’t make their sexual activity right. A man who no longer loves his wife may now love his female co-worker, but that doesn’t make his adultery right.

It’s possible, of course, that Naff has no problem with consensual adult incest or with adultery. And maybe he has no issue with polygamy or polyamory. But as a thinking man (which he clearly is), he should be able to understand that conservatives have reasons other than “ancient prejudices” for opposing gay marriage. After all, there were ancient cultures that celebrated homosexuality, yet they still recognized marriage as male-female only.

That’s because marriage has had a specific function and purpose through the millennia, and it’s not just “ancient prejudices” that cause many of us to reject its redefinition. Or is it only prejudice that believes God designed men for women and women for men? Or is it only bigotry that believes it’s best for a child to have a mom and dad?

Naff asks, “What possible harm can her marriage cause? Not even the claim of setting a ‘bad’ example holds water. People do not choose their spouses on the example set by clergy. If they did, there’d be no Catholic children, and poor, sultry Elizabeth Taylor could never have married even once.”

Actually, many people do follow the examples set by their leaders (including clergy). As for Naff’s argument regarding Catholicism, wouldn’t he argue that the sins of some pedophile priests have been especially heinous, because they are looked to as religious leaders?

Of course, I’m not comparing Oliveto’s “marriage” to her partner to a priest abusing boys. I’m simply saying that clergy have a special responsibility to set good examples. Their bad examples have a wider, ripple effect.

Naff then focuses on the Bible itself, using the same hackneyed, pro-gay arguments that have been refuted time and again. (For example, he claims that Paul’s categorical prohibition against male and female homosexual practice in Romans 1 is merely “a tirade about some unnamed people who turned their backs on God and indulged in, er, Roman-style orgies”).

Not only so, but he seems oblivious to the idea that, when Methodist leaders speak about “Christian teaching” on homosexuality, they do not refer exclusively to the Bible. They’re speaking in general about the unanimous teaching of virtually all branches of Christianity for nearly 2,000 years. And they’re speaking in particular about the clear teachings of the Methodist Church throughout its history.

But this is not important for Naff, since he feels there’s a much deeper problem with the Methodist Church: hypocrisy. Why, he wonders, does the Church not ban divorce the way it bans homosexual practice?

The answer is that, according to Scripture, there are some legitimate causes for divorce, and these are recognized by the Methodist Church. It is the question of remarriage that is in question, but that’s a question he fails to ask. (He could have made a better argument had he addressed that question.)

Either way, Naff isn’t calling for a church ban on divorce. Instead, he explains, “I am trying to help you see that the Bible may be many things — historical treasure, poetical comfort, and sacred scripture — but as a moral guide, it is hopeless. Some claim to follow its commands literally, but they deceive themselves. No one can do so, for the Bible is a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions.”

So, it’s fine if we take the Bible to be “sacred scripture,” as long as we realize that it’s “a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions,” not to mention “hopeless” as “a moral guide.”

Thanks but no thanks.

That kind of “sacred scripture” is neither sacred nor scripture. Why anyone would take comfort in its words and find guidance for life if, in fact, the Bible is what Naff describes it to be?

After launching a few more (weak) salvos against the Scriptures, Naff writes, “Look at the Bible with fresh eyes, and you’ll find the record of ancient peoples who, lacking any police force, detectives, or proper jails, did their best to construct rules for getting along with each other and used the fear of God to enforce them. Look even closer and you’ll find that those in power often bent the rules in their favor. I suppose God might have wanted the people to heap silver, gold, and fatted calves on their priests, exempt them from any real work, and give them a retirement plan (Numbers 7 – 8), but I find it more likely that the priests themselves heard the Word of God that way.”

Put another way, this is not the Word of God, so don’t treat it as the Word of God.

Instead, Naff states, “I’ve shown that the United Methodist Church is interpreting the Bible to privilege the heterosexual majority while sanctimoniously applying ancient ‘laws’ in a questionable way to Bishop Oliveto. But more important, I hope I’ve shown that Methodists, and all other religionists, would do well abandon the effort to apply scriptural codes to contemporary life. Draw inspiration, by all means, but recognize that the hard work of thinking through right and wrong remains a moral duty for us all.”

In truth, Naff did not prove his points at all, let alone demonstrate them in such fashion that Methodist leaders should feel beholden to follow his counsel. But it is not merely Naff’s attack on the Bible that falls short. It’s his logic that falls short as well, since, if he is right in his description of the Bible, there’s no reason for the Methodist Church (or any church) to exist. There’s not even a reason for a single synagogue to be found on the planet if what we call sacred Scripture is merely a compendium of human ideas, many of them flawed, and none of them perfectly inspired.

In short, if Jesus is not the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead, Christians are believing lies. End of subject. And if the Torah was not given by God through Moses, Jews are believing lies. That’s all that needs to be said.

Not only so, but if the Bible is not a moral guide, it cannot be a spiritual guide, since it purports to tell us who God is and what He requires from us, His creation.

I do understand Naff’s concerns about religious fundamentalism, which he has articulated elsewhere. But he fails to understand that:

1) the Bible’s moral witness is quite coherent when studied holistically and in-depth;

2) scholars have answers for the questions he has raised, along with many more; and

3) there are solid reasons, both practical and moral, to stand against homosexual “marriage.”

What is lacking, then, is not the inspiration of Scripture or the wisdom of Scripture or the moral authority of Scripture. What is lacking is the understanding of human beings (including Naff), which is exactly why we need God’s Word.

Human reasoning alone will always fail us. God’s Word will never fail. 

Dr. Michael Brown Guest Blogger, Distinguished Author, Speaker and Christian Apologist More Articles

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
 

This Filmmaking Couple Doesn’t Want to Be Punished for Not Promoting Same-Sex Marriage


waving flagAuthored by Leah Jessen / / December 06, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/06/this-filmmaking-couple-doesnt-want-to-be-punished-for-not-promoting-same-sex-marriage-2/

Filmmakers Carl and Angel Larsen say they wish to tell stories about God’s design for marriage between one man and one woman, without fear the government will punish them for not promoting same-sex marriage. (Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom)

A Minnesota couple is suing state officials to allow their film production company to celebrate marriage as a man-woman union without being forced, against their biblical beliefs, to promote same-sex marriage.

Carl and Angel Larsen, of St. Cloud, Minnesota, say they run Telescope Media Group as a way to deploy their storytelling ability and production services to glorify God.

“The Larsens desire to counteract the current cultural narrative undermining the historic, biblically orthodox definition of marriage by using their media production and filmmaking talents to tell stories of marriages between one man and one woman that magnify and honor God’s design and purpose for marriage,” the lawsuit filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota says.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Larsens and Telescope Media Group, which they own.

“Because of their religious beliefs, and their belief in the power of film and media production to change hearts and minds, the Larsens want to use their talents and the expressive platform of [Telescope Media Group] to celebrate and promote God’s design for marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman,” the suit says.

Minnesota government officials argue that private businesses face criminal penalties if they promote a marriage between a man and woman but refuse to promote a same-sex marriage, the Larsens’ lawyers at the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom say.

“Filmmakers shouldn’t be threatened with fines and jail simply for disagreeing with the government,” Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a formal statement.

“Filmmakers shouldn’t be threatened with fines and jail simply for disagreeing with the government,”

If convicted after criminal prosecution under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the Larsens face a fine of $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail, according to the lawsuit. They also could be ordered to pay compensatory and punitive damages up to $25,000.

The Larsens, who are in their mid-30s and have been married for 14 years, are challenging the law before Minnesota officials take any action against them and their company. The law in question is the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

“The law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from nondiscrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage,” the Minnesota Department of Human Rights website says.More forced

The Larsens’ lawyers filed a pre-enforcement challenge against Kevin Lindsey in his official capacity as commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and against Lori Swanson in her official capacity as attorney general of Minnesota. According to the suit:

The Larsens simply desire to use their unique storytelling and promotional talents to convey messages that promote aspects of their sincerely held religious beliefs, or that at least are not inconsistent with them. It is standard practice for the owners of video and film production companies to decline to produce videos that contain or promote messages that the owners do not want to support or that violate or compromise their beliefs in some way.

The Daily Signal sought comment from both the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Human Rights, but neither had responded by publication.

Telescope Media Group’s services include web-streaming and video recording of live events as well as producing short films.

“Telescope Media Group exists to glorify God through top-quality media production,” the company’s website says.

The company has created content for clients such as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and LifeLight, an annual Christian music festival held near Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

“Every American—including creative professionals—should be free to peacefully live and work according to their faith without fear of punishment,” Tedesco said in a release from Alliance Defending Freedom. He added:

For example, a fashion designer recently cited her ‘artistic freedom’ as a ‘family-owned company’ to announce that she won’t design clothes for Melania Trump because she doesn’t want to use her company and creative talents to promote political views she disagrees with. Even though the law in D.C. prohibits ‘political affiliation’ discrimination, do any of us really think the designer should be threatened with fines and jail time?

French fashion designer Sophie Theallet published an open letter  Nov. 17 saying she would not dress President-elect Donald Trump’s wife, the future first lady, because of disagreements with him and urged other fashion designers to do the same. Last week, American fashion designer Tom Ford said on TV’s “The View” that he would not dress Melania Trump, in part because “she’s not necessarily my image.”

“The Larsens simply seek to exercise these same freedoms, and that’s why they filed this lawsuit to challenge Minnesota’s law,” Tedesco said.

Big Gay Hate Machine

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Leah Jessen

Leah Jessen is a news reporter for The Daily Signal and graduate of The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Leah.

 

Alabama Suspends Chief Justice Roy Moore for Defending the Law against Sodomites


waving flagReported by Tim Brown

URL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/alabama-suspends-chief-justice-roy-moore-for-defending-the-law-against-sodomites

Big Gay Hate Machine

A formal complaint was filed on Friday against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore by an Alabama judicial oversight body claiming that he “flagrantly disregarded and abused his authority” in ordering the state’s probate judges to refuse applications for marriage licenses by same-sex couples.

The New York Times reports:

As a result of the charges, Chief Justice Moore, 69, has been immediately suspended from the bench and is facing a potential hearing before the state’s Court of the Judiciary, a panel of judges, lawyers and other appointees. Among possible outcomes at such a hearing would be his removal from office.

“We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail,” Chief Justice Moore said in a statement, saying that the Judicial Inquiry Commission, which filed the complaint, had no authority over the charges at issue.a

Referring to a transgender activist in Alabama, Chief Justice Moore said the commission had “chosen to listen to people like Ambrosia Starling, a professed transvestite, and other gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, as well as organizations which support their agenda.”Leftist Giant called Tyranny

These sodomite and communist supporters don’t know what they are getting themselves into. Justice Moore is not one to be bullied into submission, especially by the sodomites and their supporters. The court Moore presides over rendered a 170-page ruling in favor of a Petition for Mandamus by Liberty Counsel rejecting the US Supreme Court’s marriage opinion. SCOTUS GIANT

Moore is merely upholding the Alabama State Constitution. Which was amended in 2006 to read:

(a) This amendment shall be known and may be cited as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.

(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.

(f) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any common law marriage of parties of the same sex.

(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.

Clearly, the federal courts and this lawless judicial body are attempting to overthrow the law and establish a dictatorship through the DC government.

If only we would deal with sodomites in the same manner our founding fathers did, we wouldn’t be allowing the lawless to dictate what should be law and redefine marriage.

Chief Justice Roy Moore has told state judges not to disregard the ruling of a federal court on Alabama’s constitution and marriage. He has made the case for what marriage is and where the right to marriage comes from, God. Moore encouraged Governor Robert Bentley to resist federal tyranny in the matter, but Bentley seems to be more geared towards political correctness than he does the truth about rights, marriage and his duty to the people of Alabama.burke

Led by Justice Moore, the Alabama Supreme Court also put a halt to illegal same-sex “marriages” across the state back in March 2015.

Moore is the same judge who stood against the DC government’s infringement upon the Tenth Amendment and stepping out of their jurisdiction to try and remove the Ten Commandments from the wall of his courtroom.

God bless Judge Roy Moore and may He see fit to bring us many more like him!

 

Tim BrownAbout the Author, Tim Brown

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He co-hosts NorthWest Liberty News radio each week day from 4-5pm EST with Jim White and occasionally hosts Bradlee Dean’s Sons of Liberty Radio show from 2-3CST. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

You Won’t Believe Why This Conservative University Professor Was Suspended INDEFINITELY


waving flagBy Philip Hodges April 1, 2016

John McAdams – a conservative university professor in Wisconsin – has been suspended indefinitely for criticizing a fellow professor for not allowing debate about same-sex marriage in her classroom. McAdams may return to Marquette University as professor in January of 2017, only if he admits that he was “guilty.”

It all started at the Milwaukee, Wisconsin Catholic university in 2014 when a student recorded his encounter with his philosophy professor Cheryl Abbate regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. Abbate had told her class that the issue of “gay rights” was not up for debate, that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

After class, the student discussed the issue with Abbate, but the professor eventually suggested to the student that he drop the course, adding that “some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions…You don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments.” She stated, “In this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.”Militent Radical liberalism socialism

The conservative university professor John McAdams wrote a post on his blog Marquette Warrior in 2014 exposing the student-professor encounter and criticizing Abbate for her intolerance. He concluded, “Like the rest of academia, Marquette is less and less a real university. And when gay marriage cannot be discussed, certainly not a Catholic university.”

When university administrators found out about McAdams’s critical blog post, it was recommended that he be fired. But their policy required that he given due process and a hearing before a committee. Breitbart reported:

It was announced this week that a “diverse” faculty committee recommended to the university president that McAdams be suspended without pay from April 1 through the fall of 2016 and that he lose his job unless he admits “guilt” and apologized “within the next two weeks.” Specifically, the demand is “Your acknowledgement that your November 9, 2014, blog post was reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University and you express deep regret for the harm suffered by our former graduate student and instructor, Ms. Abbate.”Big Gay Hate Machine

The conservative university professor said their demands are similar to the “Inquisition, in which victims who ‘confessed’ they had been consorting with Satan and spreading heresy would be spared execution.”Picture1

Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Deal: reject ‘religious liberty’ bills that allow discrimination


waving flagBy Greg Bluestein and Aaron Gould Sheinin – The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Updated: 8:26 a.m. Friday, March 4, 2016  |  Posted: 2:53 p.m. Thursday, March 3, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/deal-reject-religious-liberty-bills-that-allow-dis/nqcrL

no more rinos

Gov. Nathan Deal on Thursday issued a powerful biblical appeal against “religious liberty” legislation in the General Assembly and said he would reject any bill that legalizes discrimination.

His statement and those of other legislative leaders, businesses and religious groups have given gay rights supporters confidence that they may soon be able to move from defense to offense in pursuit of expanded legal protections for gays and lesbians in Georgia. Big Gay Hate Machine

The governor said he is not interested in any bill that “allows discrimination in our state in order to protect people of faith,” and he urged religious conservatives not to feel threatened by the legalization of gay marriage. Asked whether that meant he would reject such legislation, and aide to the Republican governor said he would.Leftist Propagandist

Deal also called on his fellow Republicans pushing for the measure to take a deep breath and “recognize that the world is changing around us.”

Deal has already called on lawmakers to make changes to House Bill 757, which originally said no pastor would be forced to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. It was amended in the Senate to include provisions that would allow individuals and organizations to deny service to same-sex couples or gays and lesbians if it violates their religious beliefs.

Mar. 2, 2016 – Atlanta – Representatives from Georgia Equality, Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign delivered copies of 75,000 emails to lawmakers and Gov. Nathan Deal to the governor’s office on Wednesday. The messages not only urge state leaders to defeat so-called religious liberty legislation they believe would legalize discrimination, but also for the state to adopt civil rights protections for all, including the LGBT community. BOB ANDRES / BANDRES@AJC.COM

House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, said Thursday that he agrees with the governor.

“Speaker Ralston appreciates and shares Governor Deal’s sincere commitment to protecting religious liberties while ensuring that Georgia continues to welcome everyone with genuine Southern hospitality,” Ralston spokesman Kaleb McMichen said.More Liberal Gibberish

Supporters of the bill, however, say it is not intended to legalize discrimination but to prevent government from forcing religious believers to act in a way that violates their deeply held religious beliefs.

Mike Griffin, the head of public affairs for the Georgia Baptist Mission Board, said the times are changing, but not everything is. “God’s word is not changing,” Griffin said. “When it comes to the issue of marriage, while that’s changed, God’s definition has not.”

HB 757, Griffin said, “does not seek to disenfranchise anyone, it doesn’t seek to discriminate against anyone.” “It protects people of faith from discrimination by the government coercing them into actions that violate their religious beliefs,” Griffin said.

But Deal said his religious faith tells him there are other ways.

“What the New Testament teaches us is that Jesus reached out to those who were considered the outcasts, the ones that did not conform to the religious societies’ view of the world. … We do not have a belief, in my way of looking at religion, that says we have to discriminate against anybody,” he said. “If you were to apply those standards to the teaching of Jesus, I don’t think they fit.”Picture2

Deal quoted the Gospel of John that showed Jesus reaching out to an outcast.

“What that says is we have a belief in forgiveness and that we do not have to discriminate unduly against anyone on the basis of our own religious beliefs,” Deal said. “We are not jeopardized, in my opinion, by those who believe differently from us. We are not, in my opinion, put in jeopardy by virtue of those who might hold different beliefs or who may not even agree with what our Supreme Court said the law of the land is on the issue of same-sex marriage. I do not feel threatened by the fact that people who might choose same-sex marriages pursue that route.”Picture3

Griffin, however, turned to a different verse from the Bible: Matthew 19: 4-6. “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 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’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The bill, Griffin said, “just narrowly defines this one area of marriage.”

But, as Deal and Ralston, along with powerful businesses such as Delta Air Lines, Home Depot and tech-giant Twitter, have called on Georgia’s leaders to embrace diversity, gay rights activists see an opportunity.

“Governor Deal has powerfully articulated a message of unity for Georgia,” Jenner Wood, chair of the Metro Atlanta Chamber, said. “His words will spread far and wide to affirm our reputation as a welcoming state that celebrates both our faith traditions and our diversity.”More Liberal Gibberish

Wednesday, after he delivered 75,000 emails calling on the governor to veto HB 757 should it reach his desk, Georgia Equality Executive Director Jeff Graham said he is increasingly optimistic.

“Over the last week we’ve seen an outpouring of concern,” he said. “The eyes of the nation are on Georgia. It’s really a pivotal time. (Lawmakers) need to decide if they’re going to cling to the bias and discrimination of the past or keep Georgia an open, fair, hospitable place to live and do business.”

After Deal’s latest comments on Thursday, Graham agreed there are ways to protect those on all sides of the issue.

“A comprehensive civil rights law in Georgia can protect all communities and groups from discrimination and can reinforce our state motto of wisdom, justice and moderation,” Graham said.

Chad Griffin, president of the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign and no relation to Mike Griffin, said it’s time for Georgia to move forward.

“We want to not just kill the bad legislation that hurts Georgians but now move forward with legislation that protects LGBT Georgians,” he said.More Liberal Gibberish

A House panel earlier this year rejected a plan to do just that. But a bipartisan group of lawmakers has filed a resolution that would create a House study committee that could spend the months between legislative sessions examining the conundrum from all sides and propose a solution before lawmakers return in January.

“I’m hopeful,” said state Rep. Stacey Evans, D-Atlanta, the primary sponsor of House Resolution 1513. “I have formally requested a hearing this morning.”

Death of a nation Die true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

New York farm owners give up legal fight after being fined $13,000 for refusing to host gay wedding


– The Washington Times – Tuesday, February 23, 2016

The owners of a New York farm fined $13,000 for declining to host a same-sex wedding on their property have chosen not to appeal a court ruling against them, bringing an end to the high-profile legal battle after more than three years.

An attorney for Robert and Cynthia Giffords, who own the 100-acre Liberty Ridge Farm in Rensselaer County, said Tuesday that the couple will not challenge the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division’s Jan. 14 ruling, which upheld a decision by the state Division of Human Rights.

The division fined the Giffords $10,000 for violating the state Human Rights Law and ordered them to pay $1,500 each to Melisa and Jennifer McCarthy for “the emotional injuries they suffered as a result of the discrimination.”

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Caleb Dalton said that “[a]fter much consideration, the Giffords have decided not to appeal the ruling and are evaluating how to best run Liberty Ridge Farm under a legal regime that disregards their convictions.”

The Giffords stopped hosting wedding ceremonies at their farm while litigating the case, which stemmed from their September 2012 refusal to rent the venue to the couple for religious reasons.

An administrative judge with the New York State Division of Human Rights ordered a Christian farm family that refused to host a gay wedding to pay $3,000 to Melisa Erwin (right) and Jennifer McCarthy for “mental pain and suffering,” in addition to $10,000 for violating the state’s human rights ordinance. (Associated Press/File)

“Americans should be free to live and work peacefully according to their beliefs, especially in our own backyards,” Mr. Dalton said in a statement. “The government went after this couple’s constitutionally protected freedom and their ability to make a living simply for adhering to their faith on their own property. This kind of governmental coercion should disturb every freedom-loving American no matter where you stand on marriage.” 

The Giffords made their decision after a string of court defeats suffered by Christian small-business owners sued for declining to offer products and services for same-sex marriage ceremonies.

Attorneys for the Giffords argued that forcing them to host a same-sex wedding amounted to compelled speech and a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The Giffords argued that they would host wedding receptions, parties or other events for same-sex couples, but the court said that their “purported willingness to offer some services to the McCarthys does not cure their refusal to provide a service that was offered to the general public.”

“Indeed, the Giffords are free to adhere to and profess their religious beliefs that same-sex couples should not marry, but they must permit same-sex couples to marry on the premises if they choose to allow opposite-sex couples to do so,” Presiding Justice Karen K. Peters said in the 14-page opinion.More Liberal Gibberish

The family rented out the first floor of their home on the property and surrounding backyard for marriage ceremonies, at which Mrs. Gifford served as wedding coordinator.

The couple also have been ordered “to implement re-education training classes designed to contradict the couple’s religious beliefs about marriage,” according to the Alliance Defending Freedom.

pure socialism Free Speech Definition Different Free Speech Ideologies Die Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

NY Couple Ordered to Complete “Re-education” to Contradict Religious Beliefs About Marriage


waving flagReported by Josie Rudd January 27, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://minutemennews.com/ny-couple-ordered-to-complete-re-education-to-contradict-religious-beliefs-about-marriage

Do you remember the New York couple, who was sued for their refusal to host a same-sex marriage ceremony on their property?  Not only was this their property, it was their home.   They live in the barn they built on their property, and would sometimes host weddings there.  

An appeals court just ruled that their refusal to host the union of a same-sex couple, in their own home, was discriminatory. They were fined $13,000, and to top it off – they were ordered to attend “re-education training classes” to counter their religious beliefs on marriage as a sacred union between a man and woman.pure socialism

What is happening to the United States of America?

CNSNews reports:

“After the agency ruled that the Giffords were guilty of ‘sexual orientation discrimination,’ it fined them $10,000, plus $3,000 in damages and ordered them to implement re-education training classes designed to contradict the couple’s religious beliefs about marriage,” a press release issued following the court decision stated.pure socialism

In order to comply with the order, the couple will have to attend those “re-training” classes or have a “trainer” come to them, according to ADF.Big Gay Hate Machine

“All Americans should be free to live and work according to their beliefs, especially in our own backyards,” ADF legal counsel Caleb Dalton, who argued before the court on behalf of the couple in Gifford v. Erwin, said in a statement. “The government went after both this couple’s freedom and their ability to make a living simply for adhering to their faith on their own property.”

Free Speech Definition Different Free Speech Ideologies Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Mozilla Forced its Co-Founder to Resign For Opposing Gay Marriage . . . Just Look What He’s Doing Now


waving flagWritten by Michael Minkoff, Jr., Jan 25, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/mozilla-forced-its-co-founder-to-resign-for-opposing-gay-marriage-just-look-what-hes-doing-now

Brendan Eich stepped down as CEO of Mozilla after it was publicized that he had given $1,000 to support Proposition 8 in California. Though it was considered a real publicity win for the homosexual agenda, more than a few people recognized what Mozilla had lost when Eich stepped down.Big Gay Hate Machine

See, Eich didn’t just co-found Mozilla, whose Firefox browser was the first to challenge the supremacy of Internet Explorer. Eich also created the ubiquitous JavaScript programming language, which remains one of the three pillars of web content creation, alongside HTML and CSS, that nearly every website in existence uses.

Having revolutionized browser technology and web content programming, Eich is back at it again. He has founded another company, Brave Software, and this time, he has his eye set on revolutionizing internet advertisement.

Eich co-founded Brave Software with former Khan Academy and Mozilla software developer Brian Bondy last year after stepping down as Mozilla’s CEO in 2014 amid an uproar over donations he made in support of California’s same-sex marriage ban. The epiphany that prompted the creation of a new browser, he tells WIRED, came when he realized that advertising as a business model for websites was here to stay. . . . But he also acknowledges that the deluge of resource-hogging banners and pop-ups on ad-supported sites understandably lead users to demand ways of blocking them. The problem, Eich says, is that the current crop of ad blockers are openly antagonistic toward sites’ survival.

So, what’s the solution? According to Eich, it’s the Brave browser system which is designed to end the war between internet advertisers and web users. Just how does it end the war? Well, first you need to understand how the current system works.

In the current system, the ads that you see on the internet are generally determined by your internet usage history (as collected by Google, usually) and curated by an external ad server. Which ads get selected are largely outside of your control, and in an effort to get your attention, ads have become increasingly intrusive, garish, and annoying.

There are two problems with the current system. First, most of us hate ads. It significantly degrades the online experience. Second, advertisers are actually collecting your private browsing history to serve you more targeted ads. So, there are two things that the Brave system intends to salvage: the quality of your browsing experience and the sanctity of your private information.

But what are other possible solutions to this two-part problem? Ad-blockers are one “solution.”  They get rid of both problems. But at what cost? If enough people use ad-blockers, this would threaten the “free” nature of the internet. For better or worse, ad revenue makes it possible for content creators to make their sites available without a subscription fee. So ad-blockers are not a good solution if we want to maintain the current “free-to-view” structure of the internet.

Subscription is also not a very good model. Most people don’t desire to “subscribe” to the internet, aside from the fact that such a model would strike at the heart of the democratic exchange the internet has made possible.

Eich’s Brave Software is a middle ground. It solves the privacy problem by storing absolutely no browsing information in the cloud. All browsing information would be stored locally by the browser itself. The ads would also be served by the browser within very consistent and strict parameters. And the ads would be curated by the user. Over time, the user would have nearly complete control (through his browser history and direct feedback) over the ads he saw.

The downside is that the user would still have to see ads. But giving the user control over the ads he saw and limiting where the ads would be in the browser, all while protecting the user’s private information? That sounds better than the current system. And if anyone can revolutionize the way we use the internet yet again, it’s Brendan Eich.

ATTA BOY In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Number ONE Socialism in America Story: “Something Sickening Was Just Done To Christian Bakers Who Refused To Make Lesbian Wedding Cake”


Reported by Melody Dareing December 30, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/something-sickening-was-just-done-to-christian-bakers-who-refused-to-make-lesbian-wedding-cake/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=ConservativeHeadlinesEmail&utm_campaign=PM1&utm_content=2015-12-30

kleins

Tyranney AlertIt was not enough for bakery shop owners Melissa and Aaron Klein to pay more than $136,000 fine to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. The state has now wiped out all cash from all their bank accounts too – and did it right before Christmas.

Melissa Klein said was checking on their three bank accounts when she found out the government took every penny. The money was even taken from a separate account the couple uses to keep their church tithe. The amount totaled around $7,000.

“It was like my breath was taken away,” Melissa Klein said in a telephone interview. “I panicked. Everything was gone.”

The couple, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, faced the wrath of the state in 2013 after they would not bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. While the Kleins will bake cakes for homosexuals for other events, like birthdays, Aaron Klein told the couple they could not support a lesbian commitment ceremony because of their Christian beliefs about marriage. Same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Oregon at the time. The couple held a commitment ceremony in June 2013 and were legally married on May 23, 2014, four days after same-sex marriage was legalized in Oregon.

Even though same-sex marriage was not yet legal in the state, the Kleins were hauled before the bureau on discrimination claims under the state’s public accommodations law. The government then ordered them to pay $136,927.07 judgment for causing “emotional suffering.” They paid it in full to avoid a state-mandated nine percent interest penalty, according to their attorney. The money was given to the Kleins through donations.

“The least expensive option to stay in compliance with the law was to pay the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries funds that will be kept in a separate account until they prevail in their court appeal,” said attorney Tyler Smith in a prepared statement regarding the case.

The couple had to shutter their retail shop and now work out of their home. They were also slapped with a gag order prohibiting them from speaking publicly about their decision to refuse baking a wedding cake for same-sex marriages.

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian said in a 2013 interview that he was not trying to shut Sweet Cakes by Melissa down. He wanted them to change their views. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”Picture2

pure socialismStill, closing the business and issuing a gag order was not enough for Avakian, who actively supports gay rights in his social media posts and public comments. He authorized the move to wipe out the Kleins’ bank accounts, even the one meant for the church.

“We had three accounts,” Mrs. Klein said. “I have one account that’s labeled, ‘God’s money’ – our tithing. They just took it.”

The Kleins’ case is on appeal and Smith said they would continue to fight it even if it means taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Aaron and Melissa will continue to work to ensure that every American has the First Amendment right to express their faith-based beliefs, and to conduct their daily affairs according to their conscience,” Smith said.

Big Gay Hate Machine In God We Trust freedom combo 2

How the Indiana Pizza Shop Responded After Being Tricked Into ‘Catering’ a Gay Wedding


waving flagPosted by Travis Weber / / October 16, 2015

Much of the media today roundly disparage any business-person who even voices his or her religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. This is the consistent narrative by which many presumptuously judge small business owners’ (often wedding vendors) motives in affirming their religious convictions as animating their business lives. Critics reject out of hand their claims that they are simply living out their faith with love and can’t be a part of a wedding ceremony that violates their consciences.Big Gay Hate Machine

When the owners of Memories Pizza—a small-town pizzeria in Indiana—were posed a hypothetical question about whether they would cater a gay wedding last year, the “intolerance” of their simple response that they would not resulted in a threat to burn down their shop. They did not answer threats with threats, but continued to calmly explain that they would happily serve gay customers; they just didn’t want to be a part of the wedding. Of course, none of this mattered to those not interested in seeking the facts.

want_rel_liberty_rIt now appears that a man ordered two pizzas from Memories Pizza, without stating his reasons (as is quite normal when ordering pizza), and brought them back to serve at his same-sex wedding. He recorded the event on video and claimed that Memories “catered” his gay wedding—without knowing it.

While the charade itself is sort of childish, it does hold several lessons for us. Let us first consider that, in response to the video, Memories owner Kevin O’Connor has…

Threatened to burn something down? Nope.

Called someone a bigot? Nope.

He’s actually not really too interested in the actions of his customer after selling him the pizza.

So what’s the point?

It is an undisputed fact that Memories Pizza served a man regardless of his sexual relationships. Its owners did not CP 01deny him service. They didn’t “turn him away.” They didn’t quiz the man when he came in, asking whether he identified as a homosexual or what he would use the pizza for.

Those truly seeking to understand the conflicts in the “wedding vendor cases” should study what happened here, for they will see that no one involved is interested in simply turning away customers based on how they identify sexually.

People are interested in exercising the teachings of their faith regarding marriage, and in continuing to live quiet and peaceful lives in harmony with their communities, as they have been doing for years. They haven’t sought a fight; it has come to them.

What else can we learn?

Leftist Giant called TyrannyIt’s important to note that Kevin O’Connor did not respond in an apoplectic manner with claims of “my conscience was violated here!” Conscience is violated not merely by the occurrence of events; there must be knowledge of what one is getting oneself into or being forced to participate in. It must be emphasized that the wedding vendors around the country who are asserting their religious freedom are doing so because they are knowingly being forced to participate in an act that violates their conscience, not because a customer disagrees with them on matters of sexuality.

Even then, Kevin would have had no problem serving the customer the pizzas even if he knew who he was. “We weren’t catering to their wedding,” Kevin said. “They were picking [pizzas] up.” Kevin has no problem with serving a person in his shop, whether or not that person identifies as gay.

For those who truly care to understand what the wedding vendors are seeking in these cases, there is an important lesson here. Kevin O’Connor’s indifference in this matter can be contrasted with his kind but firm refusal to participate in a same-sex wedding when asked earlier this year.

He is not asking to “turn away” people. He is only asking that he not be forced to violate his conscience by knowingly participating in a wedding ceremony that runs counter to his religious beliefs. Memories Pizza’s unproblematic “catering” of the same-sex wedding in this case shows as much. Those who sincerely care to understand more about such religious freedom claims can learn from Kevin’s actions, which are an important teaching moment on the role of conscience in the “wedding vendor cases” and beyond.Picture2

The small business owners involved in these matters are not asking for a “blank check” to do whatever they want. They are advancing sincere conscience claims against being forced to knowingly use their businesses for certain ends, and they are often happy to forgo the lost income and even refer the potential customers to another business where they can find what they need.

As long as we live in a democracy, people will have differing views on moral questions. The model of tolerance displayed by Kevin O’Connor is as good as any for how we can live together with those differences.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

IF WE HAVE TO OBEY SAME SEX LAWS: Shouldn’t Illegals Have To Obey Immigration Laws?


waving flagPosted on September 8, 2015

qmeme_1441757295259_661Yet, this still won’t make sense in the mind of a liberal.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

How Kim Davis Can Be Released From Jail Without Agreeing to Violate Her Conscience


waving flagPosted by Roger Severino / September 04, 2015

This photo made available by the Carter County Detention Center shows Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk who was jailed today after a judge found her in contempt of court for her refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Five of her deputies agreed to comply with the law. (Photo: Carter County Detention Center/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Commentary By Roger Severino

Rowan County, Ky., is a lesson for America in how not to resolve social conflict. The local head clerk is sitting in jail, and a judge has ordered her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in her absence. When the Supreme Court redefined marriage for the nation in an activist decision this June, it took the issue out of the democratic process and made it much harder for citizens to navigate our differences on this fundamental institution. Both sides of the debate knew the decision would have significant social effects. For civil servants like clerks who issue marriage licenses, the implications were also immediately personal.cp 11

Rowan County clerk Kim Davis could not, as a matter of religious conviction, issue same-sex marriage licenses. Davis’ further dilemma is the fact that her name is attached to every county marriage license, and she believes issuing them to same-sex couples would constitute precisely the kind of endorsement of same-sex unions her faith forbids. Because of that, her office stopped issuing all marriage licenses after the Supreme Court decision.

A lawsuit followed and a federal court on August 12 ordered her to issue licenses despite her faith-based objections. She did not comply with the order, and at a hearing Thursday the judge sentburke Davis to jail for contempt of court, even though the plaintiffs had specifically asked she be given fines instead of jail time. The judge ordered the deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses or also face contempt of court and five out of six said they would comply. Meanwhile, the judge has told Davis she will stay in jail because she will not comply with his orders.

This situation could have been avoided. This problem would not have even existed in Kentucky and many other parts of the country had the Supreme Court allowed states to deal with the marriage question democratically—with the give-and-take that naturally leads to compromises, the balancing of competing interests, and a diversity of solutions over time. Instead the Supreme Court redefined the institution for the entire country in one fell swoop but did not say how our constitutional guarantee of religious liberty would be reconciled with the new order of things.

Conflicts have been warned about for years, and all four dissenters to the Supreme Court’s marriage decision predicted dire consequences for religious freedom. SCOTUS GIANT

Given the inevitable challenges to this fundamental freedom, it is imperative that we seek solutions to navigate the complex road ahead. In this particular case, there are a number of potential ways forward so that same-sex couples can get licenses as required by the courts and Kim Davis can be released from jail without having to agree to resign or violate her conscience.

One help in finding the way forward is Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires the government to avoid substantially burdening religious expression absent a compelling government interest. There is no compelling government interest in keeping Kim Davis’s name on the licenses instead of the name of the deputy clerks who are willing to issue them. If it’s “just a little form”—as Davis’ critics would like to suggest—then change the form, not the beliefs.Picture5

There are a number of other possible accommodations that could be adopted by the legislature, courts, or executive agencies in the state. Davis is not interested in stopping all same-sex marriages in her county. She is only asking that she not be forced to participate in them in a way that violates her beliefs.

Opt-out systems like this work in many walks of life. In fact, we already have examples of such options being adopted in the marriage licensing context. For example, North Carolina allows objecting clerks to choose to not get involved with marriage licensing at all, and the state will guarantee that someone will take their place if needed. Hawaii has an online registration system for marriage licensing that gets rid of many of these concerns.

Whatever the method, people of good will want a solution that leads to better outcomes than the impasse in Rowan County this week. Reaching such a solution in Kentucky is still feasible—and desirable, to respect the legally protected interests of the plaintiffs and the religious conscience of Kim Davis.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

More From The “Thousand Words” Files


waving flag anyone who supports abortion atheism Bills-Speech defaced defend the rights of conscious fascism fetus for everyone frank-m-davis-5901 freedom of speech fund Hypocrisy lion body parts my 23rd abortion Rush-FB1 Safe-Six Side-Deal-600-LI ticking Vid-Kid-590-cdn Why I stopped performing abortions In God We Trust freedom combo 2

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

GAY JIHAD: The Death of Free Speech


waving flagWritten by Pete Parker on July 20, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2015/07/gay-jihad-the-death-of-free-speech

Today in America if you dare speak out concerning the evils of homosexuality, same- sex marriage, gender dysphoria and transgenderism you run the very risk of becoming a victim of Gay Jihad.  That’s right: Gay Jihad.
 
This particular brand of “holy war” is designed to instill fear and apprehension in all those who oppose the above mentioned abnormalities. The goal is to silence all vocal opposition by way of character assassination, litigation and legislation driven by such groups and organizations as LGBT, the Human Rights Campaign and the Democrat Party.  In other words: Gay god idol  
President Obama–unquestionably–is a key ally of the Gay Jihad movement. His use of the bully pulpit to push for the legalization of same-sex marriage (while at the same time demonizing those who opposed it) was nothing short of stunning. Obama did this knowing full well that it would not only create a backlash against Christians–but also against one of the most cherished and sacrosanct rights in all of Western Civilization–free speech.
And just how cherished is this right? Well, it compelled George Washington to state the following: “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Washington–unlike the childish, thin-skinned misfits of Gay Jihad–understood that all speech must be protected. Yes, even speech which includes expressions and opinions that gays deem “offensive” and “intolerant.”  Free Speech Definition  
And, yes–that includes Christians bakers who refuse to provide services for a gay wedding, or a Jewish school teacher who is of the opinion that homosexuality is deviant.
 
Again, the First Amendment is not a bulwark to protect gays (and their hyper-sensitive minions) from speech that might damage their fragile feelings. Quite the opposite. It was designed to protect the very speech they disdain and detest. (It’s time for gays to grow-up, get over themselves, stop hiding behind judicial tyranny and grow thicker skin.)
 
In the final analysis–the only way to confront the enemies of free speech–is with more free speech. And that’s why I urge all patriotic Americans to speak out on the issues–regardless of whom it offends. Because–if we don’t–we will suffer the death of free speech.
 
God save the Republic from Gay Jihad (and its ally in the White House).

Different Free Speech Ideologies freedom combo 2

Texas Clerk Refuses to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses


waving flagAuthored by avataron 14 July, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://barbwire.com/2015/07/14/0700-texas-clerk-refuses-to-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses

Freedom is never free

A Texas clerk refused to issue licenses for same-sex “marriage,” and Liberty Counsel has come to the defense of this clerk.

Mat Staver: Matt, this is in Texas, it’s Irion County, and that particular location is the place for a clerk, by the name of Molly Criner, who has issued a statement regarding marriage and the fact that she says she will uphold the Constitution, and therefore must reject the ruling that is lawless.

This is what her statement says in part, “To keep my oath to protect the Constitution I must reject this ruling that I believe is lawless. I have to stand for the Constitution and the rule of law.”

Matt Barber: She is setting an example for millions, frankly, of other American citizens, for clerks, for judges, for attorneys, for teachers…on and on it goes. And what we’re talking about here is the rule of law.

She said, “The justices of the Supreme Court acted outside and against the authority granted to them by the very Constitution that we have sworn to uphold.”

So what she is saying here, Molly Criner, she’s saying I’m going to obey the Constitution and uphold my duty, sworn duty to the Constitution, and I am going to ignore this unconstitutional, lawless decision by these five unelected, unaccountable, justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.Picture3

freedom combo 2

The world of post-SCOTUS gay marriage and church insurance


waving flagPosted by    Tuesday, July 14, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/07/the-world-of-post-scotus-gay-marriage-and-church-insurance/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29

As told by one of our readers

Supreme Court Gay Marriage Oral Argument Fox News Tax Exemption Liberty
SCOTUS GIANT
Last week, we took a look at an insurance notification received by a church in Oregon. National Review’s David French originally reported the story.

Those fearful Obergefell v. Hodges could spell trouble for religious liberty were validated much sooner than anticipated. Less than 48 hours after the decision was handed down, New York Times columnist Mark Oppenheimer called for the end of tax exemptions for religious institutions. And the piecemeal dismemberment on religious liberties continues.

Now infamous for their intolerance of Christianity, Oregon continues to be ground zero for the cp 11Biblical Principles vs. Ideological Fascism showdown.

National Review’s David French explains an emerging problem for Oregonian pastors seeking liability insurance.

Churches, like virtually every functioning corporation, protect against liability risks and the potentially ruinous costs of litigation through liability insurance. With same-sex marriage now recognized as a constitutional right — and with news of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries awarding a lesbian couple $135,000 in damages for “emotional, mental and physical suffering” after a Christian bakery refused to bake their wedding cake — pastors are reaching out to insurance companies to make sure they’re covered. And at least one insurer has responded with a preemptory denial: no coverage if a church is sued for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.Picture2

While denying insurance coverage is not itself an encroachment of religious liberty, lack of protection is as much a problem; one that could easily sink any independent church that winds up the defendant of a complaint.Leftist determonation to destroy freedom of religion

French continues:

On July 1, David Karns, vice president of underwriting at Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company (which “serve[s] more than 8,400 churches”), wrote an “all states” agents’ bulletin addressing same-sex marriage. It begins: “We have received numerous calls and emails regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages. The main concern is whether or not liability coverage applies in the event a church gets sued for declining to perform a same-sex marriage.” Karns continues:

The general liability form does not provide any coverage for this type of situation, since there is no bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, or advertising injury. If a church is concerned about the possibility of a suit, we do offer Miscellaneous Legal Defense Coverage. This is not liability coverage, but rather expense reimbursement for defense costs. There is no coverage for any judgments against an insured.

In other words: Churches, you’re on your own. (National Review has tried to reach Mr. Karns and Southern Mutual’s corporate office, and they have not yet returned our calls.)

Monday one of our astute readers and blogger at Insureblog (a blog that covers all things insurance), provided a much appreciated technical view of the church insurance/religious liberty discussion.

Henry Stern writes:

SSM & Church Insurance

The other day, we looked at how health insurance (particularly group plans) will be impacted by the recent SCOTUS ruling on Same Sex Marriage (SSM). Now, the legal beagles over at Legal Insurrection have a very interesting post about the future of liability insurance in this new, enlightened age, and it’s not pretty:

“On July 1, David Karns, vice president of underwriting at Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company (which “serve[s] more than 8,400 churches”), wrote … The main concern is whether or not liability coverage applies in the event a church gets sued for declining to perform a same-sex marriage”

The short answer: No.

As usual when it comes to issues involving Property and Casualty (P&C), I turned to good friend and guru Bill M for his insights:

The reason that coverage in such circumstances would (likely) be declined is that it was an intentional act of violating the law. So if (when?) a church (or synagogue, or mosque) is sued for refusing to perform a SSM, the resulting lawsuit would not be covered. That also means the carrier has no “duty to defend” (basically: provide legal counsel).

Of course, any fines imposed by the state would also be excluded.

This is not quite the same as the linked post’s headline:

“Churches refusing to perform same sex marriages may be denied liability insurance”

At this point, no carrier is refusing to actually underwrite and issue a policy to non-complying churches for the simple reason that it’s not currently a part of the underwriting process. That is, there’s no question on the app that reads “Do you refuse to perform gay weddings?” If and/or when a claim arises because of such refusal, the carrier would simply deny coverage.

Now, actually denying to write a policy in the first place is currently pretty speculative. But as Bill pointed out to me, such a scenario is not necessarily farfetched:

Imagine Acme Church Insurance Company with 50,000 policyholders, 10,000 of which get sued for refusing SSM, and all 10,000 of these claims are denied. That’s a lot of ticked off customers, no? So what’s the likelihood that the next application version’s going to include a question about SSM, and if the answer’s not “sure, all the time,” then no soup policy for you.

Is that likely to happen in the next year or two? Probably not, but don’t be surprised when it does happen a few years down the road.

Bill also brought up another very disturbing thought: many (most?) churches have Boards of Directors (or Elders, or Deacons, etc), and thus likely have D&O (Directors and Officers) coverage:

“Errors and omissions coverage for an organization, its leaders, and governing bodies while acting within the scope of their duties.”

The reason for this coverage is that board members could be sued individually, putting their personal assets at risk for something their church or its leaders may have done (or not done).

Bill mused about whether such policies might also decline coverage for SSM-related claims. Talk about a chilling effect on lay folks volunteering for leadership positions in their congregations.

Brave new world, indeed.

Leftist Giant called Tyranny Big Gay Hate Machine Demorates squeeze into mold freedom combo 2

Kansas Governor Brownback Issues Order Protecting Beliefs of Clergy About Same-Sex “Marriage”


waving flagWritten by  , Friday, 10 July 2015 

URL of the original posting site: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21236-kansas-gov-brownback-issues-order-protecting-beliefs-of-clergy-about-same-sex-marriage

Kansas Governor Brownback Issues Order Protecting Beliefs of Clergy About Same-Sex “Marriage”

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback issued an executive order on July 7 that prohibits the state government from taking any action against any individual clergy, religious leader, or religious organization that “acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.” The governor said his order protects “Kansas clergy and religious organizations from being forced to participate in activities that violate their sincerely and deeply held beliefs.”

Brownback issued the executive order, entitled “Preservation and Protection of Religious Freedom,” in response to last month’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, mandating recognition of same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states. In the order, he cited the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Section Seven of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution, and the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (which he signed in 2013), all of which protect the religious liberty of Kansans. He quoted from the latter, which provides that state government shall not “substantially burden a person’s civil right to exercise of religion.”

Building on that legal foundation, Brown noted that “the recent imposition of same sex marriage by the United States Supreme Court poses potential infringements on the civil right of religious liberty” and that “government actions and laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate tolerance for those beliefs and convictions and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society.”burke

Getting down to specifics, Brownback ordered:

The State Government shall not take any discriminatory action against any individual clergy or religious leader on the basis that such individual declines or will decline to perform, solemnize, or facilitate any marriage, based upon or consistent with the individual’s sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction

The four Catholic bishops in Kansas issued a joint statement urging state officials to make the enactment of new legal protections for those who are opposed in conscience to same-sex marriage a top priority in coming months. The bishops praised Brownback’s order and said in a statement: “Generations of Americans have taken freedom of conscience for granted. We, sadly, do not have that luxury anymore.”It HasNever Been About Marriage

Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently issued a similar memo to all agency heads in his state, granting state employees who object on moral grounds to same-sex marriage some protection against the ruling. Abbott’s memo stated: “All state agency heads should ensure that no one acting on behalf of their agency takes any adverse action against any person, as defined in Chapter 311 of the Texas Government Code, on account of the person’s act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief.”Big Gay Hate Machine

While orders such as Brownback’s and Abbott’s mitigate some of the most harmful effects of the Supreme Court’s overreaching decision on same-sex “marriage” — about which Justice Samuel Alito said in his dissent, “The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State” — they fall far short of other remedies available to the states. One such remedy is nullification, a little-used technique in recent history, but a viable one nevertheless. As Joe Wolverton noted in a recent article for The New American on the prospect of states using nullification to resist the application of Obergefell v. Hodges within their borders:Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Nullification, whether through active acts passed by the legislatures or the simple refusal to obey unconstitutional directives, is the “rightful remedy” for the ill of federal usurpation of authority. Americans committed to the Constitution must walk the fences separating the federal and state governments and they must keep the former from crossing into the territory of the latter.

Wolverton cited no less an authority on the Constitution than Thomas Jefferson to support the legitimacy of nullification, quoting from the Founding Father’s statement in the Kentucky Resolutions:

That the several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour [sic] of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.

Though nullification is a valid, constitutional option, no state has thus far made an attempt to apply the principal to Obergefell v. Hodges. Granted, it has been only a few weeks since the decision was made, and such matters take time. However, that is all the more reason why serious discussions to consider that possibility should now be taking place.SCOTUS GIANT

One of the strongest statements suggesting nullification came from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who said on Newsmax TV’s The Steve Malzberg Show shortly before the High Court handed down its decision that the states should ignore any Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. “A ruling by the Supreme Court is nothing but an opinion if the legislative branch and the executive branch do not enforce it,” said DeLay. “Not only that, if the states would just invoke the 10th Amendment and assert their sovereignty, they can defy a ruling by the Supreme Court. It’s in the Constitution. We can tell the court what cases they can hear.”

What DeLay described regarding telling the federal courts which cases they can hear is governed not by the 10th Amendment, which protects the sovereignty of the states, but by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to make exceptions to and regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Former Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) attempted to utilize this power when he introduced his We the People Act in 2004 and 2009. The bill, if it had passed, would have removed jurisdiction of federal courts from cases involving the establishment of religion, sexual orientation, abortion, and marriage.

Invoking such power made more practical sense when DeLay mentioned it prior to Obergefell v. Hodges being decided. Since the court has now ruled, it would be difficult to rescind its jurisdiction to decide on marriage cases retroactively. However it is not too late to use the other tool that DeLay recommended, the 10th Amendment, to which Justice Alito alluded when he said, “The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.”

If the decision should be decided by the states, then the states must declare that the power usurped by the Supreme Court in rendering that decision is null. Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Related articles:

Political Leaders Voice Discontent With Supreme Court Marriage Ruling

Catholic Leaders Vow to Stand Against Contraception Mandate, Same-sex Marriage

Texas AG: “Reach of Court’s Opinion Stops at the Door of the First Amendment”

Supreme Court Rubber Stamps Same-sex “Marriage” — Time for Nullification

Rome: Hundreds of Thousands Protest Against Same-sex Unions

Marriage Can’t Be Redefined

Sen. Lee and Rep. Labrador Propose Protection for Religious Liberty

Southern Baptist Leader: Prepare for Civil Disobedience Over Gay Marriage Ruling

As Gov. of Texas, Would Abbott Continue to Stand for States’ Rights?

freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagHappy Fourth(?!)

States move to counter gay marriage ruling


By Tim Devaney06/30/15

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/246582-states-move-to-counter-gay-marriage-ruling

burke

More than a dozen states that saw gay marriage bans struck down last week by the U.S.  Supreme Court are vowing to protect religious liberty, even though they grudgingly accept that the ruling is now the law of the land.

  • In the wake of Friday’s decision, Texas’s attorney general told county clerks in the state that they have a statutory right to refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have religious objections to gay marriage.
  • In Alabama, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore — a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage — said a new state court order could temporarily delay the practice, only to walk back the remarks.
  • And in Louisiana, the attorney general contends there is nothing in the Supreme Court’s ruling that renders it effective immediately, raising questions about how soon the state would have to comply. Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Many other states across the South and upper Midwest are criticizing the ruling as an encroachment on states’ rights and religious freedom, though most acknowledge they cannot ignore it. “Ultimately, my position is that the state should have been legally entitled to define marriage,” South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley told The Hill. “I feel the state has traditionally held that role, and certainly when it’s in the state’s constitution it should be respected.” “But we are a nation of laws and we must respect that,” he added.

Before the Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday, those states and 11 others — Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio and Tennessee — had laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Though not outright defying the high court’s decision, states are now seeking to make clear the limits of its scope. “The ruling does not tell a minister or congregation what they must do, but it does make clear that the government cannot pick and choose when it comes to issuing marriage licenses and the benefits they confer,” said Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway.Giant Government Compliance Officer

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the state would issue exemptions to county clerks, judges and justices of the peace who express religious objections to issuing gay marriage licenses, promising to “defend their religious beliefs.” The government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections,” Paxton said, accusing the Supreme Court of “ignoring the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist.”

In cases where there are objections, however, other public officials would issue the documents.

A federal judge ruled in May that Alabama’ s same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional and stayed her opinion until the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. This week, Moore — the state Supreme Court’s chief justice — initially said a new motion in the earlier case would effectively table Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, a case known as Obergefell v. Hodges.
But same-sex marriage advocates argued that the order has no tangible effects thanks to a federal injunction, and Moore later backed away from the assertion. “In no way does the order instruct probate judges of this State as to whether or not they should comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell,” he said.SCOTUS GIANT

Still, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange accused the Supreme Court of “overturning centuries of tradition and the will of the citizens.” “I expect the focus will now turn to the exercise of one’s religious liberty,” Strange said.

A number of attorneys general also complained that the Supreme Court’s decision infringes on states’ right to define marriage how they see fit. Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said the court’s ruling “overturns the will of the people of Louisiana, and it takes away a right that should have been left to the states.”

Caldwell is threatening to essentially disregard the Supreme Court’s ruling for the time being, saying there is “nothing in [the] decision that makes the court’s order effective immediately. Therefore, there is not yet a legal requirement for officials to issue marriage licenses or perform marriages for same-sex couples in Louisiana.”

Gay rights activists warn that any acts of perceived defiance would threaten to undermine the legal system. “It’s a dangerous message for southern governors to disobey an order from the Supreme Court,” said Marc Solomon, national campaign director at Freedom to Marry. “The notion that public employees get to pick and choose which laws they follow based on their religious beliefs is a really dangerous precedent and a terrible public policy,” he added. “If you’re a public official, you need to carry out those laws, and you don’t get to decide whether they’re right or wrong.”
Big Gay Hate Machine
The attorneys general in North Dakota and Mississippi both said they are waiting on other court cases to be resolved before they enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage. Other states like Ohio and Nebraska expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court was interfering with their marriage laws but also indicated they would respect the ruling.

And top officials in a handful of states that formerly banned gay marriage are now welcoming the Supreme Court’s ruling. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said he would move swiftly to recognized same-sex marriage in the wake of the court’s ruling. “The history of our country has always been one of moving toward inclusion and equality,” Koster said in a statement. “I applaud the court for their courage and strong sense of fairness. Missourians should be seen as equals under the law; regardless of their gender, race, or whom they love.”It HasNever Been About Marriage

Austin Yack, Hanna Krueger, Kate Hardiman and Rachel Ravina contributed.

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

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagThe Proverbial Camel

A Debate That MUST Be Shared


waving flagAlthough this debate goes on for over 45 minutes, it is well worth the time to listen. It is a wonderful to help answer New WhatDidYouSay Logoquestions you may have heard about homosexuality and the Bible.

Please watch and share.

Jerry Broussard of WhatDidYouSay.org

 

 

debateBig Gay Hate Machinefreedom combo 2

 

Video Of The Day: Sharpening Your Traditional Marriage Argument


waving flagPosted by Rottdawg — June 29, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://joeforamerica.com/2015/06/votd-sharpening-your-traditional-marriage-argument

Big Gay Hate Machine

Here are a couple videos that will help strengthen your argument should you be in the traditional marriage camp. The Supremes really let the citizens of America down with their moronic argument supporting same-sex marriage.

marriage

This one here is a bit NSFW, but Christopher Cantwell has a message for all of those that rainbowed up their Facebook profiles in celebration of the SCOTUS decision.

face

Leftist Giant called Tyranny

reduced to tears SCOTUS GIANT Giant Government Compliance Officer freedom combo 2

 

How to fight judicial tyranny


waving flagPosted by on June 29, 2015

In Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges he said, “It is of no special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

Whatever one’s views on marriage, our Founders made it clear that the federal government is a child of the states — not the other way around. The Supreme Court’s decision to legislate from the bench on a matter rightly left to the purview of the states is among the most blatant instances of federal overreach this country has ever seen.

Gov. Mike Huckabee, who also endorses the Convention of States Project, laid out the problem clearly in a recent op-ed:

Can the Supreme Court “decide” this? They cannot. Under our Constitution, we have three, co-equal branches of government. The courts can interpret law but cannot create it. The ruling still requires congressional funding and executive branch enforcement. The Supreme Court is not the “Supreme Branch,” and it is certainly not the Supreme Being. If they can unilaterally make law, and just do whatever they want, then we have judicial tyranny.

Throughout our nation’s history, the court has abused its power and delivered morally unconscionable rulings. They have rationalized the destruction of innocent human life, defined African Americans as property and justified Japanese-American internment camps. U.S. presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ignored Supreme Court rulings, rejecting the notion that the Supreme Court can circumvent the Constitution and “make law.”

I also reject the idea of “judicial supremacy” as just another flawed, failed feature of big government, inconsistent with what our founders fought a revolution to establish.SCOTUS GIANT

But there is hope. A constitutional recourse to judicial tyranny is gaining momentum around the country. A Convention of States, called under Article V of the Constitution, can impose constitutional limits on the federal government’s power — limits that will ensure an end to the overreach we witnessed last week.

So what can YOU do?

1. Learn about Article V and the Convention of States movement. All the most important info is on our Learn page.

2. Click here to sign petition. It will be automatically sent directly to your State Senator and House Member.

3. Click here to find out how to become a leader for our effort in your area. We need more District Captains, and we’d love to work with you.

4. Send this post to everybody you know. Tell your friends. Tell your family. Tell your coworkers. Tell everybody about what we are doing. Spread the word about the Convention of States Project. Join the 300,000 plus people on the Convention of States Facebook page at www.facebook.com/conventionofstates and Like your state’s page as well.

We can restore our country to the principles of self-governance upon which our country was founded. The Founders gave us the tool — it’s time we use it.

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

The Left’s Moral Relativism Has Eaten Our Culture Alive — and Conservatives Have No Political Strategy to Stop It


June 26, 2015 Listen to it Button

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/06/26/the_left_s_moral_relativism_has_eaten_our_culture_alive_and_conservatives_have_no_political_strategy_to_stop_it

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Look, I know everybody is trying to understand this, and everybody’s trying to explain it to each other. Everybody’s looking to everybody else for a deep meaning, an explanation that makes sense. Because none of what’s happening makes sense to people. So what’s going on? Well, hang in there. I’m going to give my shot at this today, folks.

The EIB Network and Rush Limbaugh, get ready. Oh, yeah, that too. Open Line Friday, which could be juicy today. This is where we try to emphasize callers a little more than we do Monday through Thursday. Never know how it’s actually going to play out. But the rule is on Friday whatever you want to talk about, have at it. Telephone number is 1-800-282-2882. And the e-mail address elrushbo@eibnet.com.

Ladies and gentlemen, not to be — I don’t even know what the word is — dismissive, the outcome of this case today has never been in question. The fact that the Supreme Court was going to find gay marriage as they did should not be a surprise. It doesn’t mitigate the result. I mean, just like yesterday we could all predict what was going to happen with Obamacare, but being alive and seeing it happen and living through it, the reality of it, it’s crushing. Same thing here.

The only question on this one was going to be the vote, was it going to be 5-4 or 6-3. It turned out to be 5-4. Now, everybody’s looking for an explanation. Everybody’s reading dissent opinions. Everybody’s consulting. A lot of people calling each other, emailing each other, “Gee, what?” I can’t tell you the number of people who have sent me e-mails with a simple theme, the same theme. “How do you persevere? How can you go on the radio today? What in the world, how do you even know anybody’s going to be listening? Do you realize, all seems lost, what in the world is there to say?”

Well, I’m here, and I’m going to do my best to put this into some sort of perspective. One thing I’m not is in a state of denial. I think there’s a lot going on, and to try to put them in any kind of priority, “Okay, this is the worst and then this is the next worst.” That’s a futile exercise and ultimately meaningless. But I think, folks, you can almost include Obamacare in this. In this decision today, the court legalizing gay marriage, this is in a way Roe v. Wade all over again. The country was involved.

As Scalia pointed out in a dissent, there was a pretty robust debate going on, state by state, over gay marriage. It’s now been shut down. So once again, five justices have forced a way of life on people, and many of them disapprove of it, do not support it, and have not had a chance to vote on it. So I think we’re faced with a future where a culture will continue to be roiled much as it has been since Roe v. Wade.

I’ve heard commentators today on all the cable networks, and they run the gamut. One of the seemingly common themes among some quasi, so-called conservative commentators or analysts is, “Hey, these are just people and they just want what’s been denied them,” and it goes on and on. “They just want dignity and respect. It’s not asking for much, they just want –” and it’s not about that in all cases. The rule for gay marriage is not about joining anything, it’s about redefining.It HasNever Been About Marriage

I mean, if the move for gay marriage was about joining, then a couple that walks into a bakery and wants a cake baked for their wedding and proprietors say, “No, it’s against our religious beliefs to support gay marriage,” then the gay couple would leave and go find some other bakery to bake their cake. But that’s not what happens. They go to court and they try to get that bakery shut down, or that photography studio shut down. So it makes me dubious of this idea that there’s just an effort here to join the majority. There’s clearly an effort underway to up-end and redefine and punish.

Take a look at what happened in Charleston, South Carolina — by the way, all this comes under an umbrella, which I’ll explain. There’s a singular theme for all of this that’s happening. And maybe even pretty much a — though you may not agree with it — singular explanation for it. But after the shooting in Charleston, look at how quickly that became a Republican event. And look at how quickly people moved to banish the Confederate flag.

The Confederate flag had nothing to do with anything involved with the Charleston situation. It had nothing to do with it. It was totally unrelated. An opportunity was made, seen and acted upon by the Democrat Party to move their agenda forward. The Republican Party was totally unprepared for it. The conservative movement was totally unprepared for it, was left to either join it or be humiliated and held up for ridicule.

Now, I think in the case of this gay marriage decision today, the answer to this sadly is not going to be found in politics or policy, because the problems and the truth go way beyond that. I think we’re dealing with a culture that is under assault and is deteriorating rapidly. The truth is that all this transcends the Constitution. I think there is a spiritual war going on where truth is no longer truth. There is no objective truth. Everything is relative now, particularly morally. Words have no meaning. Words can be whatever the most forceful group of people want them to mean. Whatever the most intimidating group of people wants a word to mean is what it will mean.Truth The New Hate Speech

So the door’s open for liberals and oligarchs to do whatever they want to do. And I don’t know that politics or legal solutions alone are the remedy for what is happening. To me, a bigger casualty than the healthcare debacle and the socialism aspects of Obamacare is the assault on the Constitution and an even bigger casualty still was on the truth itself. Words no longer mean anything. They’re just tools for liberals to accomplish whatever ends they want to accomplish.

Now, I’m going to get into some of the words from dissenting justices on the case today, the gay marriage case, because they’re poignant, and they get to a point, make a great point. But I’ll tell you, folks, everybody’s trying to understand the difference in John Roberts, his decision today, his opposition to gay marriage compared to what he wrote yesterday for Obamacare, is incoherent. The two don’t make any sense side by side. I have a theory.

I think I know or have a good idea of why Obamacare survives, amnesty survives and will survive, and I think it’s basically fear. Fear of being the one, anyone in history, who dared oppose or repeal anything accomplished by the first African-American president. I think that has created a paralysis in the Republican Party and in the conservative movement and at the Supreme Court and at Congress and at the Senate. I think it’s pervasive and I think it’s going to be forever. I think that fear is going to survive long after Obama has served his terms of office.

tyranny

In other words, the effort to repeal Obamacare in, say, 2017, 2018, I don’t know who is going to have the guts to actually do it. Somewhere along the line somebody is not going to want their name attached to it because the historical notation that X was a leader in the movement that repealed the act of Obamacare brought to us by the first African-American president. My point is, I think there is more fear than we have ever understood. I think there is a paralysis-type fear brought about and brought on by the election of the first African-American president.

It is made even more intense by the fact that people can see what the media does to you if you dare stand up in opposition to Obama. And Obama has made it clear that after his terms in office are over he’s not going anywhere. He’s going to have a residence in Washington and one of the reasons for that is to protect his legacy. If anybody makes a move to repeal anything, whatever it is, and we’ve still got a year and a half. I told you in January of this year, folks, buckle up, these next two years will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen. They’re starting out that way. We’re now six months in. And it is the case.

But here’s the thing, folks. When you get right down to it, everywhere I look today — yesterday, the day before, last year, the year before that, the last decade, the decade before that. Everywhere there’s conservative anger — everywhere — over everything that’s happened. Today the anger is at the Supreme Court. Yesterday the anger was at the Supreme Court. And that’s all there is, is anger. There’s never anything done beyond expressing the anger. There aren’t any policy reactions.loose both

There aren’t any efforts whatsoever to deal with the assaults and the attacks that are relentless and daily from the left. I mentioned Charleston. I mean, here you have a horrible, sad event in Charleston, South Carolina. And within minutes it became the fault of the Republican Party! It became the fault of the conservative movement. The media, as per usual, began looking for any evidence that Dylann Roof had any tie whatsoever to the Republican Party.

They focused on the Confederate flag. It became yet another daily march of the Democrat leftist agenda, which has — as its number one objective — to eliminate political opposition in this country. I’ve said it for the past two days and I’m going to say it again. The biggest threat that Obama and the Democrats have is us. They fear us more than they do ISIS or the Iranians or whatever, because they view us as able to take away from them their power via elections.

They’re not worried about ISIS taking their power away; they’re not worried about the Iranians doing that. So we must be destroyed. We must be attacked and annihilated and rendered irrelevant. The Dukes of Hazzard, for crying out loud! A television show, because the Confederate flag was on the roof of the car, comes under assault. There never is any strategy to deal with this. We know what’s coming — at least I do! I’ve made a career here out of warning everybody what’s coming, and there never is…

inconvenient truthThere doesn’t ever appear to be any awareness of what’s coming and there certainly isn’t any strategy to deal with it. And that is one of the reasons why I know you’re frustrated and maybe despondent. You have invested in everything you think you can do. You’ve donated. You’ve purchased. You’ve voted. You’ve gotten out the vote. You’ve done everything you can. You have called. You have emailed. You have faxed.

You have let your opinions be known, and you hear everything you want to hear during campaigns — and that’s the last time you hear it. The fact of the matter is a Republican Congress is helping Obama build his power base by not stopping any of it, by not opposing any of it. I continue to see no opposition strategy. Gay marriage, Obamacare. Both of these, particularly Obamacare, the best I can tell the Republican strategy has been, “We’re not going to fight Obama because he’s the first black president.

“We’re just not going to do it. Say what you want, conservative voters, but we’re not going to do it. There’s no future in it. The media will kill us. They will call us racist. We’ll let the Supreme Court deal with it.” For military base closings back in the late ’80s, Congress would go out and hire Blue Ribbon commission members — former Congressmen, retired people — to do this and that, to do the heavy lifting of closing military bases rather than get their fingerprints on it.

Campaign finance reform?

Same thing.silent - Copy

Everybody you talked to in the Republican Party said, “It’s unconstitutional. We can’t support that!” President Bush signed it. They said, “Let the court fix it.” The court didn’t fix it. They found it constitutional. “We’ll let the court deal with Obamacare. The Supreme Court will fix it. We’ll go to the court. We’ll sue. That’s what will happen.” And we keep losing every time we go to the Supreme Court because we do not have a political strategy. Nor is there a political will to even devise a strategy.

Everything is, “Wait until the next election. We’ll get them in the next election! We’ll get them in 2017.” We have a year and a half to go until 2017! Who knows what kind of destruction will take place between now and then? But yet, folks, there’s a conservative apparatus all over Washington, DC. There are conservatives everywhere. There’s an entire TV network made up of ’em. Conservative talk radio is made up of conservatives. There’s no shortage of conservatives. They’re everywhere.

We’ve got conservative think tanks here, think tanks over there. We’ve got conservative analysts; we’ve got conservative advisors. They’re everywhere!

Raising money…

Fundraising…

Writing books…

Promising…

Nothing changes.

BREAK TRANSCRIPTmasters - Copy

RUSH: It’s Open Line Friday. I’m going to go to the phones, and the only way to do this is to be disciplined about it. I say provocative things all the time, and I’ve just gotten started today, folks. Hang in there. Be tough. That was just the open monologue. That was just warming up. I’m going to go to the phones, though. Ovi in Orlando. Great to have you on the program, Ovi. Hi.

CALLER: Actually, it’s O-z-z-i-e, like Ozzie and Harriet. (chuckles)

RUSH: All right.

CALLER: But in any case, I was going to disagree with you a little bit. I don’t think Republicans are so much afraid of challenging what Obama does because he’s the first black president. I think the real issue for Republicans is they don’t know what to do with those 30 million Americans that — if they change Obamacare — would be uninsured.

RUSH: Ozzie, they’re not insured now. Ozzie, they’re not insured now.

CALLER: Mmm?

RUSH: Obamacare is an absolute disaster. Obamacare deserves to have been thrown overboard years ago. Obamacare is destructive. Obamacare is going to destroy people’s ability to end up with disposable income in their lives and get ahead. Obamacare is an absolute disaster like much of everything this administration has brought us. It has not insured any significant millions of uninsured. Now, I understand the theory.Complete Message

The theory is, “The Republicans don’t want to throw Obamacare overboard because that means they’ll have to fix it.” That’s exactly my point! I made the point yesterday that the conservative movement has become not a party of opposition, not a movement of opposition, but a movement of fine tuning. And what does it fine tune? Democrat proposals! Democrat ideas! Instead of rejecting them, instead of throwing them overboard and proposing to the American people — who are smart enough to understand — alternative ideas, we fine tune socialism and call it conservatism.

Sorry, that’s not the answer.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, here we are right on schedule. Right on schedule. Here is a headline from the Washington Examiner: “Poll: 72% Fear lost forever - CopyEconomic Crash, Concern ‘Highest Ever’.” What the story is about, if you read it, the GOP pollsters are telling Republicans, “You’ve got to let go of those social issues, they’re killing you. It’s the economy, stupid people, you’ve got to drop the social issues.”

It is my contention that Republicans aren’t doing a damn thing on social issues. The Democrats are the ones forcing social issues on everybody. Today, the latest example, it’s the Democrats forcing these things and average, ordinary Americans are trying to defend what they believe in. There is no aggressive behavior on the part of Republicans or conservatives. Everybody is in a defensive posture. Everybody is just standing by trying to hold on to what they believe in and what they have left.

Every bit of the aggressiveness, every bit of the offense, every bit of whatever is being undertaken is from the Democrat Party. And yet, here we go, the Republican candidates for president are being told, “Get rid of social issues, let them go. It’s the economy, the economy is the way to win.” And letting go of the social issues is how our culture is being corrupted. It’s another one of these things that’s 180 degrees out of phase. And the social issues, I know what it is, folks, I know, I know. It’s a bunch of moderate Republicans who think they’re losing on abortion.

They’re losing on everything. And they just don’t know it. They’re losing on everything. You think they’re winning on the economy? We live in the most disastrous economy since Jimmy Carter, and the Republicans may be winning elections. Is there any pushback on any of this? There’s a lot of talk. There’s a lot of requests for donations. There’s a lot of fundraising going on. A lot of people promising you that they’re enacting policies or thinking about policies and they’re going to do this and they’re going to do that. The moment of truth comes and they don’t do it, and they kick the can down the road because it’s not the right time.Tree of Liberty 03

It’s never the right time. There isn’t any opposition. Those of you that are feeling lost today, those of you who feel like it’s over, you’re at your wit’s end, we’re winning nothing, we’re losing everything, you’re still the majority. That’s what’s got you so bedraggled. That’s what’s got you so ticked off. You’re still the majority. You know it. Less than two percent of the population is bullying its way through the country and nobody is doing anything to stop it because of fear or what have you. And that’s what’s got you upset.

What good is winning elections? That’s the big truth. The big, final, ultimate act is going and voting and you succeed in winning landslide victories in 2010 and 2014, what have you got to show for it, nothing. That’s why you’re mad. Tired of feeling like losers? Tired of feeling like there’s no recourse. The way the game is being played right now there isn’t. The Supreme Court, throw them in the mix, depending on the issue, and they’ll pretend they are the federal government, lock, stock and barrel. The other two branches don’t even count and don’t even matter.

A story from yesterday: “Christian Farmers Fined $13,000 for Refusing to Host Same-Sex Wedding Fight Back — The owners of a small Dofamily farm in upstate New York fined $13,000 for discriminating against a same-sex couple for refusing to host a wedding on their property are fighting back.”

Too bad they’ll lose, especially with the court’s decision today. All resistance to the militant gay agenda now is just officially just a rear guard action. It’s a lost cause, like the Confederacy. Pretty soon, like the Confederacy, all this is gonna be a hate crime to even remember.

“In an appeal filed today before an appellate division of the New York Supreme Court, a lawyer for Cynthia and Robert Gifford, owners of Liberty Ridge Farm near Albany, N.Y., argued that when finding them guilty, the court did not consider their constitutional freedoms and religious beliefs. ‘[The decision] violates the Giffords’ free exercise of religion, freedom of expressive association, and freedom of expression protected under the United States and New York Constitutions,'” according to their lawyer. Plus it was their property.

There isn’t a freedom of religion in the US anymore. Not for Christians. That’s the point. “The Giffords were found guilty of ‘sexual orientation discrimination’ by an administrative law judge,” and have been told that they must attend sensitivity training classes.

END TRANSCRIPT

Big Gay Hate Machine A LIST FOR FREEDOM let them take arms - Copy freedom combo 2

Coalition of African-American Pastors Threaten Civil Disobedience If Supreme Court Passes Gay Marriage Law


waving flagBy Vincent Funaro , Christian Post Reporter, June 25, 2015|2:20 pm

Rev. Bill Owens
Rev. Bill Owens, the president and founder of the Coalition of African American Pastors. (Photo: Facebook/Bill Owens)

A coalition of African-American pastors vowed this week that there will be massive civil disobedience if the U.S. Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage in a ruling on the matter expected this month. At a press conference in Memphis, Tennessee, members of the Coalition of African-American Pastors joined Christian ministers at the Church of God in Christ’s historic Mason Temple to warn the Obama administration to prepare for massive civil disobedience among pastors and clergy if state bans on gay marriage are deemed unconstitutional.

“If they rule for same-sex marriage, then we’re going to do the same thing we did for the civil rights movement,” said Rev. Bill Owens, president and founder of CAAP. “We will not obey an unjust law.”

“The politicians and courts have tried to take God out of this country,” continued Owens. “This country was founded on Godly principles. We will not stand back.”

Rev. David Welch, president of the Pastor’s Council in Houston, Texas, spoke out at the conference explaining the lengths people of faith might go to resist gay marriage.

“God created marriage between a man and woman and no Supreme Court jurisdiction can define this,” said Welch. “We stand clearly saying we will acknowledge God’s law no matter what the cost, no matter what the price. If they want to fill jails with pastors across the nation of every color, denomination and every size who will stand for the laws of God and His truths.”burke

Welch also compared Christians resisting gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and encouraged pastors to fight for their right to worship freely.

“If it comes down to declining to perform same-sex weddings, that we will be charged with a civil or criminal penalty, then we will accept the penalty,” said Welch. “But this isn’t just about the wedding ceremony itself. This is a core, fundamental issue of our First Amendment freedom that the court is toying with right now. Either we have the right of freedom of conscience and religion and the freedom to practice it, or we don’t.”

Opponents of gay marriage around the U.S. are going to different lengths to resist it. Texas Republican lawmakers proposed a bill that would seek to enforce a ban on gay marriage even if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to declare such bans unconstitutional, While it was co-signed by 87 Republican members of the House, HB 4105 wasn’t brought to the floor for debate before the midnight May 15 deadline, which rendered it dead. Democratic lawmaker and businesses such as Dell, Celanese and Dow Chemical lobbied against the bill.

Lawmakers in the state Senate, however, managed to pass a bill known as the “Pastor Protection Act,” which goes into effect Sept. 1, and allows clergy to refuse to conduct marriage ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs.

“Freedom of religion is the most sacred of our rights and our freedom to worship is secured by the Constitution,” Abbott said at a June 11 signing ceremony, according to the Texas Tribune. “Religious leaders in the state of Texas must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that religious freedom is beyond the reach of government or coercion by the courts.”

On April 28, the Supreme Court heard arguments on an appeal from the Sixth Circuit of Appeals regarding four state-level gay marriage bans. Many experts have said the Supreme Court will narrowly rule this month that all states must allow same-sex couples to obtain a state marriage license.

It HasNever Been About Marriage Big Gay Hate Machine Supreme Court Decision freedom combo 2

Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Couples Have Right To Marry Nationwide


Supreme Court Decision

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States. Gay and lesbian couples already could marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. Gay rights supporters cheered, danced and wept outside the court when the decision was announced.

The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that same-sex marriage must be allowed under the United States Constitution.

“No union is more profound than marriage,” Kennedy wrote, joined by the court’s four more liberal justices.

“From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations,” Kennedy wrote.want_rel_liberty_r

Kennedy also wrote the court’s previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier decisions. As Kennedy read his opinion, spectators in the courtroom wiped away tears after the import of the decision became clear. One of those in the audience was James Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court fight. Outside, Obergefell held up a photo of his late spouse, John, and said the ruling establishes that “our love is equal.” He added, “This is for you, John.”Big Gay Hate Machine

President Barack Obama placed a congratulatory phone call to Obergefell, which he took amid a throng of reporters outside the courthouse.

Kennedy was joined by the four liberal justices of the court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, and all wrote separate dissents.

Alito wrote, “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.”

Roberts said gay marriage supporters should celebrate, but don’t celebrate the Constitution.

“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” Roberts wrote.

Scalia wrote his dissent “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a  majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves,” Scalia wrote.

Thomas wrote, “Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.”

Obama called the ruling a “big step in our march toward equality.” In a statement in the Rose Garden, Obama said that justice arrived like a thunderbolt. “This ruling is a victory for America,” Obama said. The president thanked gay rights supporters who worked tirelessly for this cause. “America’s a place where you can write your own destiny,” he said.tyrants

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton weighed in, calling the ruling a “historic victory for marriage equality.”War on Christians

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said in a statement that the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to decide. Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments,” the former Florida governor said. “In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser celebrated the ruling saying the court’s recognition of same-sex marriage as a right in every state “affirms our democratic values, that each of us is equal.”Clinton Democrat Party

The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But some state officials and county clerks might decide there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The cases before the court involved laws from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Those states have not allowed same-sex couples to marry within their borders and they also have refused to recognize valid marriages from elsewhere.

Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples. The decision in United States v. Windsor did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

The number of states allowing same-sex marriage has grown rapidly. As recently as October, just over one-third of the states permitted same-sex marriage.

There are an estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to UCLA’s Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says. Roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the United States, the institute says.

The Obama administration backed the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Justice Department’s decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights, and Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.

(TM and © Copyright 2015 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2015 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)The Lower you go burke freedom combo 2

Abbott Signs “Pastor Protection Act” Into Law


waving flagby ; June 11, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: https://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/11/gov-abbott-signs-pastor-protection-act

Gov. Greg Abbott signs SB #2065 into law on June 11, 2015 joined by Attorney General Ken Paxton, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and authors of the bill Sen. Craig Estes R-Wichita Falls and Rep. Scott Sanford R-McKinney photo by: Marjorie Kamys Cotera

Gov. Greg Abbott, who signed a bill Thursday that allows clergy members to refuse to conduct marriages that violate their beliefs, said that “pastors now have the freedom to exercise their First Amendment rights.”

The signing ceremony for the so-called Pastor Protection Act, which goes into effect Sept. 1, was held outside the Governor’s Mansion. Abbott was surrounded by about two dozen clergy members at a news conference discussing the law. Others attending the signing ceremony included Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Attorney General Ken Paxton and Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, who authored the bill.

“Freedom of religion is the most sacred of our rights and our freedom to worship is secured by the Constitution,” Abbott said. “Religious leaders in the state of Texas must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that religious freedom is beyond the reach of government or coercion by the courts.”

With the signing of the bill, “Texas took a small but important step to further protect the religious freedom of clergy in the face of increasing hostility toward people of faith in all walks of life,” Paxton said in a statement. “No Pastor, Priest, Rabbi or other religious leader should be forced to perform or recognize a marriage that contradicts his or her sincere religious belief.” 

Estes has said the bill is about protecting pastors “who have a strong religious belief “ against same-sex marriage.

State Rep. Celia Israel, D-Austin, said in a statement released Thursday that she believes it’s possible to support both equality and religious liberty.  “Texans are ready for equality, and if this measure gives pastors a peace of mind, I welcome it becoming law,” Israel said.

Critics had argued that Senate Bill 2065 attempts to make it difficult for same-sex couples to marry in Texas, in case the U.S. Supreme Court legalizes gay marriages.Picture1 freedom combo 2

Pastors say ‘We Don’t have to Obey the Supreme Court on Gay Marriage’


Posted on June 11, 2015Onan Coca

 flags

A Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage could be announced any day now, and pastors across the country are already saying they intend to break the law. The Supreme Court is expected to announce a ruling on state gay marriage bans this month that could, depending on the ruling’s wording, legalize same sex marriage nationwide. Anticipating the decision, religious leaders fear they’ll lose their tax exempt status and be forced to wed gay couples or face fines and even jail time.

A coalition of those religious leaders purchased an ad in the Washington Post Wednesday in the form of an open letter to the Supreme Court Justices urging them to uphold traditional marriage.

“We are Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian pastors, clergy, lay leaders and Jewish leaders, who collectively represent millions of people in our specific churches, parishes, denominations, synagogues and media ministry outreaches,” the letter reads.

So far, more than 43,000 people have signed a petition supporting traditional marriage, many of them church leaders fearful that if gay marriage becomes constitutional, their refusal to participate will jeopardize their tax exempt status and even land them in legal trouble. Pastor Robert Jeffress, who signed the letter and leads a 12,000 member congregation at First Dallas Baptist Church, compared himself to Martin Luther King for his civil disobedience. “That may mean we experience jail time, loss of tax exempt status, but as the scripture says, we ought to obey God rather than man, and that’s our choice,” Jeffress told The Daily Caller News Foundation. Jeffress said when he announced to his congregation his decision to take a stand on the issue, they gave him a standing ovation.cp 11

Cases of legal punishment for bakers and florists who refused to serve gay weddings have fueled this fear. In Washington state, an elderly florist named Barronelle Stutzman was sued by a gay couple for discrimination after she refused to arrange flowers for their wedding. She lost the legal battle and could lose everything to pay the fines. Religious leaders have warily watched Stutzman and others like her and want to preemptively protect themselves. “We implore this court to not step outside of its legitimate authority and unleash religious persecution and discrimination against people of faith,” the letter reads. “We will be forced to choose between the state and our conscience, which is informed by clear biblical and church doctrine and the natural created order.”

gay supreme courtDuring oral arguments in April, Justice Antonin Scalia raised similar concerns asking if exemptions that protected religious leaders from prosecution for discrimination would still hold if gay marriage became a constitutional right. “But once it’s — it’s made a matter of constitutional law, those exceptions — for example, is it — is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this Court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry? Is it conceivable that that would be allowed?” Scalia asked Bonauto. Scalia also questioned whether the state would give clergymen the authority to marry if they would refuse to marry gay couples. “If you let the States do it, you can make an exception,” Scalia said. “The state can say, yes, two men can marry, but — but ministers who do not believe in same-sex marriage will still be authorized to conduct marriages on behalf of the state. You can’t do that once it is a constitutional proscription.”These questions are the ones haunting religious leaders and driving them to have their voice heard before the ruling which is expected to come down this month. “The Supreme Court, regardless of what they may think, is not the highest authority in the land,” Jeffress told The It HasNever Been About MarriageDCNF.

freedom combo 2

Identifying Hirsch’s False Teachings in “Redeeming Sex” Key to Discernment


waving flagJune 4, 2015 by

Copyright Ardogal (Contemporary Pop, Street Art & Graffiti Artist and French Painter Jean Sébastien Godfrin)

Many books about homosexuality are hitting the shelves to coincide with upcoming U.S. Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage. Among them I reviewed Scott McKnight’s A Fellowship of Differents and now Debra Hirsch’s Redeeming Sex.

Hirsch, a former lesbian-turned-heterosexual-married-self-describing-Christian, exemplifies the need and ability to discern false teaching presented as biblical. Many of her arguments are based on false premises, which lead to false conclusions.

Most disturbing is her approach that distorts and negates the person and work of Jesus Christ.

By suggesting Jesus as a “sex symbol” she writes he “would have been deeply attractive to both men and women” and it was likely that “genital sexual advances were made towards him.” Did Hirsch not read Isaiah 53? Isaiah prophesied that peoples’ redemption would come from one man who “had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.” Jesus was ordinary looking. And the pain and death he suffered, separation from his father, was more than enough to heal every person’s brokenness, including sexual sin.OKAY TO EXPOSE TEENS TO SEXUAL CONTENT BUT NOT THE BIBLE

Her reasoning regarding Jesus and celibacy is equally problematic. Regarding celibacy and comparing Jesus Christ to Roman Catholic priests Hirsch exposes her ignorance about common misperceptions related to institutionalized celibacy. More important, however, is that Jesus, as both fully God and fully man who was without sin, would not have thought romantically about women. His human nature was perfect and incomparable to the rest of a sinful human nature. Hirsch mentions nothing about obedience to God as a reason for celibacy—for all unmarried believers—one of only two sexual relationships Paul consistently and clearly admonishes that honor God.

Jesus was not celibate because he did not want to spare a wife or child from “the pain of the cross,” as Hirsch suggests. Jesus’s sole purpose was soteriological: to die a death he did not deserve for those who did deserve death—including everyone struggling with sexual sin—in order to redeem them from that sin, not to willfully continue it.

This is why through Christ’s love, grace and mercy, combined with a humble, contrite, repentant heart, and healing through the Holy Spirit, no practicing homosexual can claim to know and love Jesus Christ. To love Jesus is to follow him, to trust and obey him—no matter the cost. (McKnight brilliantly communicates this by citing testimonies from people struggling with sexual sin who claim nothing they have given up compares to the joy of knowing Jesus Christ.)

Furthermore, by defining sexuality and gender by man-made (not biblical) terms, Hirsch wrongly surmises the prostitute falling at Jesus’s feet (Luke 7:36-50) evidences what she defines as “social sexuality” and “genital sexuality.” Nothing could be further from biblical truth.

Yahshua_Miriam_fpageShe interprets this text as “Jesus blurs the lines, suggesting it is possible to love intensely outside of a marriage relationship.” This exemplifies both an arrogant western concept and an absurdly false claim.

The prostitute worshipped Jesus. She did not love him in a romantic, socially sexual, or genitally sexual way. The prostitute fell at Jesus’s feet because she loved him as her Lord and Savior.

Worshiping Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with a person’s emotional, asexual, or sexual feelings. Authentically worshiping Jesus for who he is as Lord does not even remotely imply that non-married women and men (the prostitute and Jesus) can love each other deeply. If anything, Jesus loved her as a father loves a child.

Hirsch’s doublespeak astounds. She asserts Jesus is “calling us to be in the ‘right’ loving relationship with God and with people…. to love God is to walk in his ways.” Yet she also maintains “there is no room for self-righteousness and exclusion based on disputed interpretations on nonessential issues of the Bible.” If sex, gender, and same-sex marriage is a nonessential issue of the Bible, then why write a book about it?

Further still, she justifies “God is ok with gay,” monogamous same-sex relationships provide “no incompatibility with following Jesus,” and “no ministry or church has the right to impose any change on an individual, let alone one so intrinsic as a sexual orientation.”WOE

Perhaps this explains why only verses that appear to support her assertions, taken out of context, are used as pull quotes instead of every verse if explained in their context would clearly refute them?

For anyone to argue the Bible “does not understand a modern day understanding of homosexuality” either reflects intellectually dishonesty, deception, or ignorance about sexual norms and practices during the Apostle Paul’s day. In fact, McKnight’s book paints an astonishing picture of that time, to which today’s standards pale in comparison. Again, if the Bible’s view of sex and gender is nonessential, why write a book about it?

One endorser claims Hirsch expresses a “Jesus-centered vision of how sexuality can glorify God and lead us to flourish.” Another, she offers “biblical, Jesus-lens insight.” Neither is truth.Liberalism a mental disorder 2

By using the Kinsey Scale as a plumb line Hirsch presupposes that human feelings, rationale, or psychology provide the basis for “trying to understand or define homosexuality,” which she claims, “is no easy task.” Homosexuality is easily understood when one first understands who God is. The gospel, not the Kinsey Scale, is what is needed to completely surrender to Jesus’s love, a love that surpasses all selfish and self-seeking choices to love and be loved by human standards.

Biblical love exposes sin and articulates that only through God’s grace, with or without the help of Christians, God restores broken people to himself. Hirsch and others who condone the behavior and mindset of “practicing homosexual Christians” are not loving, but harming them. Worse still they make Jesus’s death worthless. pray2Hirsch’s misrepresentation of scripture is irresponsibly misleading. Sadly, she is not alone.

Hirsch like Rob Bell who “came out for same-sex marriage,” Rick Warren who held hands with and joked about kissing Elton John, the Progressive Christian Alliance, the Gay Christian Network, and many at RNS who unashamedly cite human knowledge and feelings above biblical wisdom.

Paul, who Jesus exclusively tutored for seven years, wrote more about sex and marriage and male and female relationships than anyone else. Wouldn’t reading what he wrote in its entirety be the logical starting point? Yet few Christians read the Bible.

Those who “walk in the spirit,” those who love God with their whole heart, soul, and mind, those who seek to renew their minds and “pick up their crosses,” would not choose to “walk in the lusts of the flesh.” They would not want to disobey Jesus because their love for him is so great.

Sinning, for believers, leads to repentance, not repetition of sin. Those who know and choose to follow and obey Jesus grasp the reality that their lives are not their own; their purpose extends beyond themselves. Human sexuality (and intellect, ingenuity, athleticism, or physical or psychological traits) is only rightly understood once God’s will, communicated in scripture, is understood.

The real issue is whether or not Jesus is who he says he is, and if so, is he worthy of following at any cost.freedom combo 2

Governor Moonbeam Makes the Use of the Words Husband and Wife Illegal in California


waving flagCALIFORNIA VOTER ALERTMay 28, 2015 By

 URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.tpnn.com/2015/05/28/governor-moonbeam-makes-the-use-of-the-words-husband-and-wife-illegal-in-California/
Jerry Brown
California Governor Jerry “MOONBEAM” Brown

In the state of California, heterosexual married couples can no longer be referred to as husbands and wives. Democrat Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that not only redefines marriage, but eliminates any reference to husband and wife, replacing each with the generic term “spouse.”

SB 1306 was sponsored by Democrat Mark Leno from San Francisco. Christian News Network reports on the content of said bill:

“Under existing law, a reference to ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ ‘spouses,’ or ‘married persons,’ or a comparable term, includes persons who are lawfully married to each other and persons who were previously lawfully married to each other, as is appropriate under the circumstances of the particular case,” it reads. “The bill would delete references to ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ in the Family Code and would instead refer to a ‘spouse,’ and would make other related changes.”

Leno sponsored the bill after Proposition 8, in which California voters said no to same-sex marriage, was declared unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to overturn it. State Rep. Leno said of his legislation, “This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender.”Liberalism a mental disorder 2

In response to Governor Brown striking the term husband and wife from all family code, attorney Matthew Reynolds addressed his actions as a ‘raw exercise of power.”

“This bill continues the pattern we’ve been seeing the last few years of politicians ignoring the people to advance the agenda of marriage redefinition,” Matthew McReynolds, attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute in California, told Christian News Network. “What these politicians don’t want people to know is that their actions are illegitimate. Contary to media myths, Prop. 8 has not been invalidated on a statewide basis. Instead, these politicians are exercising raw power, ignoring the Constitution and counting on the people and the courts not to hold them accountable.”Picture1

want_rel_liberty_r burke Leftist determonation to destroy freedom of religion squeeze into mold cp 11 Different Free Speech Ideologies freedom combo 2

You Need to Know What Really Happened in Ireland


waving flagPosted by avatar , on 27 May, 2015


I almost never do this, but I felt it was very important to share a letter with you so that the whole world could understand what really happened in Ireland as this predominantly Catholic nation voted decisively to redefine marriage.

After the vote, I posted this on Facebook:

What can we learn from the vote to redefine marriage in Ireland, a traditionally Catholic country?

1) Traditional “Christian” religion cannot stop the juggernaut of gay activism. Only a living, vibrant faith will have the energy and commitment and depth to stand firm.

2) Sex-scandals in the Catholic Church in the 1990’s robbed the Church of its moral authority. How can the Church speak to the society about sexual morality when it has largely disqualified itself? Scandals like this take a long time to get over, and here in America, we have been plagued by Evangelical scandals as well, involving some of our well-known leaders. To the extent we are deemed hypocritical, to that extent we lack moral authority.

3) Ireland was not ready for the massive influx of gay activist funding from America. Sadly, from President Obama down, America has been an aggressive force for normalizing homosexuality, and without American funding and vision, it is doubtful that Ireland would have voted so strongly for such radical change.

What happened in Ireland should be a wake-up call for the Church worldwide.Same Sex Marriage

In response to my post, a woman who supports our ministry and lives in Ireland wrote to me, concerned that I was implying that believers in Ireland “hadn’t done enough to get the Gospel out.” (Actually, the reverse was true: I wanted people to understand the opposition they faced.)

She continued: “Let me tell you more about what really happened here…”

What she wrote is so important, giving detailed support to what I had read elsewhere, that I wanted to shout it from the rooftops for everyone to hear. There was extraordinary pressure brought against those who stood for marriage in Ireland, and the vote hardly reflects an unbiased enlightenment.

She wrote:

I am an Irish citizen who voted and campaigned for a NO vote. For anyone who thinks we were negligent concerning the Gospel or in any other way, let me tell you some of what we were up against…

This news is devastating to the nearly 37.9% of us who voted NO, many of us born again Christians.

We tried so hard to prevent it, but were up against every political party and up against millions of US dollars that were being poured into the yes campaign.

American billionaire, Chuck Feeney alone contributed over $24 million. Every ‘civil rights’ group on the block was behind the yes vote.

When NO vote campaign signs were posted in Dublin and other places, they were vandalized. Public media is supposed to allow 50:50 coverage for each side of a constitutional issue. This was blatantly ignored.

The public police force was drafted in to support the YES vote and to register college students to vote, and they passed out YES badges to each student as they did so.

And these things are only part of the story. The pressure was incessant and unbelievable. Even the ballot paper was biased. We argued that the term ‘marriage equality’ was biased, but yet that term made it on to the ballot paper.

Meanwhile, Christians fasted and prayed. We passed out flyers. We used social media to communicate our concerns. But all this was on a very grass roots level.

Only the Iona Institute stood up for the No vote. Only three representatives in our entire Dail (our parliament) stood up for a No vote.

Is there any small nation on earth that would survive such an onslaught? I’m actually amazed that the NO vote was as high as 37.9% after what I have seen.

As for the Gospel, can any of us really do ‘enough’? No matter how much we do, will we not always wish we could do more? We have God on our side though. I believe He has allowed this to happen for His reasons. But we will have the ultimate victory.War on Christians

Sadly, the tried and true tactics of bullying, intimidation, media bombardment, aggressive activism, and massive US funding won another victory for the gay revolution.

But this Irish Christian woman is absolutely right: We will have the ultimate victory (not over gays but in the Lord), which is one of the main points I make in my newest book, due out in September, Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide.

Right now, though, the believers in Ireland need our prayers, our encouragement, and our solidarity. This is part of an all-out war on the gospel.

✢✢✢✢✢✢✢✢✢✢✢✢✢✢✢

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12

definitions freedom combo 2

Dobson: ‘Fall of Western civilization’ at hand


Posted By Bob Unruh On 05/03/2015

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

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/dobson-fall-of-western-civilization-at-hand/

wedding_ringsDr. James Dobson, who founded the highly influential groups Focus on the Family and Family Research Council and now runs Family Talk Radio, is warning that if the U.S. Supreme Court redefines marriage as analysts predict, the ruling will presage the “fall of Western civilization.”

“I do not recall a time when the institutions of marriage and the family have faced such peril, or when the forces arrayed against them were more formidable or determined,” he writes in a letter distributed to his hundreds of thousands of supporters.

Barring a miracle, the family that has existed since antiquity will likely crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself. This is a time for concerted prayer, divine wisdom and greater courage than we have ever been called upon to exercise,” he writes.

The author of staples to families around the world such as “Bringing Up Girls,” “Bringing Up Boys” and “When God Doesn’t Make Sense,” frequently has tangled with the Obama administration.

At one point he described President Obama as the “abortion president” and warned America is heading toward “depravity.” He also, amid his lawsuit against the administration over Obamacare’s abortion requirements, told the president he would refuse to obey any law that required him to participate in the killing of an unborn child.

Read Dr. James Dobson’s full commentary: ‘High court on verge of destroy the family’

“I believe in the rule of law, and it has been my practice since I was in college to respect and honor those in authority over us. It is my desire to do so now. However, this assault on the sanctity of human life takes me where I cannot go,” he wrote in an open letter to the president.

“I WILL NOT pay the surcharge for abortion services. The amount of the surcharge is irrelevant,” he said. “To pay one cent for the killing of babies is egregious to me, and I will do all I can to correct a government that lies to me about its intentions and then tries to coerce my acquiescence with extortion. It would be a violation of my most deeply held convictions to disobey what I consider to be the principles in Scripture. The Creator will not hold us guiltless if we turn a deaf ear to the cries of His innocent babies. So come and get me if you must, Mr. President. I will not bow before your wicked regulation.”

WND also reported that when Dobson spoke to the National Day of Prayer in Washington, hundreds stood and cheered his condemnation of the abortion-funding plan, now defeated multiple times in U.S. courts.

‘Hurtling’ toward Gomorrah

His newest comments were written for distribution to constituents of the organization he founded after leaving Focus on the Family in 2010, Family Talk, which features the daily radio show “Family Talk with Dr. James Dobson.”

“We … are not simply ‘slouching toward Gomorrah,’ as Judge Robert Bork warned in his best-selling book; we are hurtling toward it,” he writes. “The old earthen dam that has held and protected the reservoir of Judeo-Christian values since the days of our Founding Fathers has given way.”

If the Supreme Court redefines marriage, he says, “an avalanche of court cases will be filed on related issues that can’t even be imagined today.”

Religious liberty “will be assaulted from every side.”

“You can be certain that conservative churches will be dragged into court by the hundreds,” Dobson writes. “Their leaders will be required to hire people who don’t share the beliefs of their denominations and constituents. Pastors may have to officiate at same-sex marriages, and they could be prohibited from preaching certain passage of Scripture. … Prison is also a possibility.”Picture1

AFA MAP with LEGANDHe says Christian businesses and ministries, as already has happened to florists and bakers, will be forced to serve at same-sex ceremonies, and Christian colleges “may be unable to teach scriptural views of marriage.”

WND has compiled a “Big List of Christian Coercion” with dozens of cases in which Christians have been fined, threatened or penalized for recognizing the biblical definition of marriage. Many organizations and companies endorsing traditional and biblical marriages will simply be shut down.

Forcing doctrinal change

“Consider an editorial published in the New York Times a few weeks ago,” Dobson writes. “It was written by liberal columnist, Frank Bruni, who insisted that Christians must be ‘made’ to change their church doctrines on sexual morality. He actually wrote, ‘Church leaders must be made to take homosexuality off their sin list.’”Free Speech Definition

cropped-different-free-speech-ideologies.jpgA foreshadowing can be seen in Obama’s recent demand for laws that prevent parents from seeking professional therapy if their children are dealing with a sexual identity crisis. Already law in a couple of states, Obama’s plan would require counselors to accept homosexuality in all such cases.

“What business does this man have telling parents how to help their confused and disoriented kids even after they have been abused and exploited sexually? This is outrageous!” Dobson says.AMEN

squeeze into moldAlso, anyone with a state license soon could be coerced into adopting the state definition of morality.

Textbooks would be rewritten, and public schools soon would teach children “gay and lesbian concepts.”Liberalism a mental disorder 2

All of which, he writes, defies the facts of marriage.

120916dobsonz

“The institution of the family is one of the Creator’s most marvelous and enduring gifts to humankind. It was revealed to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and then described succinctly in Genesis 2:24, where we read, ‘For this cause, a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh.’ With those 20 words, God announced the ordination of male-female marriage, long before He established the two other great human institutions, the church and the government,” he writes.

Every civilization has held to that understanding of marriage until now.

Read Dr. James Dobson’s full commentary: ‘High court on verge of destroy the family’

“God help us if we throw the divine plan for humankind on the ash heap of history,” he said. “Down one path are millions of strong and vibrant families with their children growing up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Down the other path is a nation drifting away from its spiritual roots in a culture that will teach a dangerous ideology to today’s younger generation and those yet to come.

“Prayer is our only hope, but it is a powerful one. Even at this late hour, the Lord could still respond to the petitions of millions of godly people. Shirley and I are among those who are praying for a miracle. Will you join us?”

George Washington’s warning

WND reported just days ago when Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, author of the New York Times bestseller “The Harbinger” and the inspiration behind the “Isaiah 9:10 Judgment” movie, smacked down the Supreme Court’s assumption that it even has the authority to redefine marriage.

“The justices of the Supreme Court took up their seats [in a hearing] on whether they should strike down the biblical and historic definition of marriage,” he said. “That the event should even take place is a sign this is America of [George] Washington’s warning … a nation at war against its own foundation.”Picture2

Washington warned that the smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation “that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself hath ordained,” he said.

Cahn noted the Supreme Court opens sessions with the words, “God save the United States and this honorable court.”

“If this court should overrule the word of God and strike down the eternal rules of order and right that heaven itself ordained, how then will God save it?” he asked. “Justices, can you judge the ways of God? There is another court and there another judge, where all men and all judges will give account.

“If a nation’s high court should pass judgment on the Almighty, should you then be surprised God will pass judgment on the court and that nation? We are doing that which Israel did on the altars of Baal,” he said.

See Jonathan’s Cahn’s message at Washington: Man of Prayer event at the Capitol.

v01

Picture5In preparation for the court’s eventual ruling, thousands of Christians, including hundreds of leaders from organizations representing millions, have said civil disobedience is an option should the court’s opinion kill marriage. The Marriage Pledge says: “We will view any decision by the Supreme Court [overturning traditional marriage] or any court the same way history views the Dred Scott and Buck v. Bell decisions. Our highest respect for the rule of law requires that we not respect an unjust law that directly conflicts with higher law.”  The petition was assembled by Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon who is editor of Catholic Online, and Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel.

“A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order. As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the state directly conflicts with higher law.

“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line.”

In Dred Scott, the Supreme Court said blacks are less than human, and in Buck, it ordered the government sterilization of innocent people.

The board of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Counsel, which represents 40,118 evangelical Hispanic churches in America and about 500,000 in Latin America and Spain, on Tuesday voted to sign the Marriage Pledge, warning that a decision mandating same-sex marriage simply would not be accepted.

CatholicVote.org issued a statement: “Remember, no matter how the court decides this summer, the truth about marriage will never change.”

Pledge co-author Mat Staver wrote at Stream.org: “I argued that a bad court decision might require civil disobedience. I still pray that won’t be necessary. I pray the Supreme Court will allow states to recognize natural marriage. That would be a great victory for truth, but it would not end the fight. Neither the Supreme Court nor any state has the authority to redefine the natural created order of marriage. Marriage is no more a state’s rights issue than is slavery or the law of gravity.

“This is the red line we will not cross,” Staver wrote. “While no one wants this conflict, we have no choice but to resist an unjust law, particularly one that will force us to participate in acts that directly conflict with the Natural and Revealed Law.”cropped-jefferson.jpg We have been torn apartburke

WND also reported longtime conservative leader Pat Buchanan urged Christians to fight the “LGBT fanatics” who are demanding they betray their faith, even if it means civil disobedience.

Of the 31 times voters have decided the issue of the definition of marriage, 31 times they have adopted the biblical definition. Among the three dozen states that recognize same-sex marriage today, not even a handful have adopted it voluntarily. In the majority of cases, it was a federal judge’s decision.squeeze into mold

Read Dr. James Dobson’s full commentary: ‘High court on verge of destroy the family’

OARLogo Picture6

Obama’s Chief Attorney Makes Chilling Admission During SCOTUS Marriage Arguments


waving flagReported by avatar , on 30 April, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://barbwire.com/2015/04/30/0800-obamas-chief-attorney-makes-chilling-admission-during-scotus-marriage-arguments/
HomofascismThe biggest news from Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments isn’t news at all to conservatives: Same-sex “marriage” is a threat to religious freedom. For once, that revelation didn’t come from one of the lawyers on our side but from the Obama administration’s own attorney. In a rare moment of candor, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli sent a clear signal on where this debate is headed, and it isn’t to the marriage altar.

As the President’s chief attorney made stunningly clear, redefining marriage is not — and has never been — the end goal of homosexuals. Silencing dissent is. And you can’t silence dissent without punishing speech and belief — which is apparently what the government has in mind if the Court rules in the Left’s favor. Tyranney Alert

Looking ahead to a possible constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” Justice Samuel Alito asked a key question: “In the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?” With chilling honesty, Verrilli admitted, “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.”

Translation: If churches, religious groups, schools, or nonprofits won’t surrender their beliefs on marriage, the government will make it hurt. A lot. cp 11

Imagine what’s happening to Aaron and Melissa Klein (slapped with a $135,000 fine for their marriage views) occurring on a national scale through hijacked tax exemptions, Pell grants, loans, and other government contracts. If the Supreme Court finds invisible ink granting a “right” to same-sex “marriage” in the Constitution, it will be a declaration of war on principled objectors. Any nonprofit that holds to a natural definition of marriage — the same definition our own President held three years ago — would have a target on its back. (Or a bigger target, I should say.)

Is it really a stretch, given the IRS’s history of harassment and discrimination against conservatives, to think that it wouldn’t show a “smidgeon” of prejudice? This ruling would give the political operatives at one of the country’s most powerful agencies even more ammunition to punish opposition. Resistance even principled, seemingly protected resistance — wouldn’t be tolerated. The IRS, which has been weaponized under this administration, will stop at nothing, including stripping tax exemptions, to force acceptance.cropped-different-free-speech-ideologies.jpg

Recognizing the damage his admission could do, Verrilli tried to soften the blow by suggesting that “different states could strike different balances.” But if liberals won’t accept the long-held right of the states to regulate marriage, what makes anyone think they would accept it here? Besides, Justice Antonin Scalia fired back, “If you let the states do it, you can make an exception… You can’t do that once it is a constitutional proscription.” Carried to its logical conclusion, the government would be in a position of punishing any non-sanctioned views. This is about controlling beliefs and actions the government doesn’t agree with — which is not only a direct attack on our First Amendment freedoms, but an attack on what it means to be an American. This is what the Left has been searching for: a selective, surgical removal of the conservative voice.forced compliance

freedomAnd the disadvantaged, poor, needy populations the Left claims to care about would be the unintended victims. Under this brave new world of “progressive totalitarianism,” as Ed Whelan calls it, churches, Christian media, schools, or groups like FRC wouldn’t be the only ones suffering. People around the world served by Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, Samaritan’s Purse, World Vision, and countless others who depend on the generosity and efficiency of their programs would feel that pain. So much for love being love.

As horrifying as Verrilli’s revelation was, the Solicitor General might have done us a huge favor. No one has made a better case for Congress’s Marriage and Religious Freedom Act than the Obama administration just did. Under the bill that conservatives plan to reintroduce, it would be illegal for the government to discriminate against individuals, organizations, and small businesses who believe in natural marriage. The same institutions that Verrilli vows to hunt down — child welfare organizations, private schools, religious universities, relief providers, abstinence groups, military religious contractors, adoption agencies, and political nonprofits — would be spared the government’s crackdown.

If you like your religious liberty, you could keep it. A concept that Tuesday’s proceedings proved is more and more foreign.compliance OARLogo Picture6

Read more at


Huckabee: SCOTUS ‘cannot overrule God’

Getty Images

The Supreme Court “cannot overrule God” on same-sex marriage, likely Republican 2016 presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said Wednesday night. “I respect the courts, but the Supreme Court is only that — the supreme of the courts. It is not the supreme being. It cannot overrule God,” he said at the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, according to CNN. “When it comes to prayer, when it comes to life, and when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, the court cannot change what God has created.”AMEN

His comments come just after the court heard oral arguments on the question of whether same-sex marriage bans around the country are unconstitutional.

Huckabee also made light of his inability to speak Spanish before the crowd. “I do not come to you tonight with the ability to speak Spanish. But I do speak a common language: I speak Jesus,” he said, according to CNN.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), another possible candidate, reportedly spoke Spanish during his own appearance at the event.

Huckabee, a former pastor, has long drawn political support from the evangelical community. Next week, he will reportedly make an announcement about whether he is running for president in 2016. If he runs, he will immediately find himself competing for the votes of Christian conservatives with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Other possible candidates, like former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), may also make an appeal to evangelical voters.

Should GoFundMe and Christian Bakers Be Treated the Same? We Ask


waving flagReported by Kelsey Harkness / / April 28, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/28/should-gofundme-and-christian-bakers-be-treated-the-same-we-ask/

Pick

Why does GoFundMe, a crowdsourcing website that raises money for a variety of personal causes and life events, get to choose who they do business with, but the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa do not?

After GoFundMe shut down a campaign set up for Aaron and Melissa Klein, bakery owners who were fined $135,000 by the state of Oregon for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian wedding, The Daily Signal posed that question to people in the nation’s capitol.

Standing outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the nine justices heard oral arguments over a high-stakes gay marriage case, advocates on both sides of the debate reacted to GoFundMe’s controversial decision.

Hear their reactions in the video below.

v01

Exclusive: Bakers Facing $135K Fine Over Wedding Cake for Same-Sex Couple Speak Out

It was the first time seeing her bakery since the new owners moved in. “This is really hard,” Melissa Klein said, tears filling up her eyes.

Almost two years ago, Melissa and her husband, Aaron, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, had to close the bakery they built from scratch after declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. “I did all the flooring in here—this was a collection agency before we moved the bakery in,” Aaron said, peering through the glass window.

bakery_042615

The end began in January 2013, when Melissa was home in Sandy, Ore., taking care of their then-six-month-old twin boys. “It was my day to be at home with the kids and Aaron’s day to be at the shop,” she told The Daily Signal in an exclusive interview. A woman named Rachel Cryer walked into the bakery with her mother for a wedding cake tasting. Aaron, just like he always did, asked for the groom’s name. “I’m sorry, we don’t do cakes for same-sex weddings,” he recalls saying after learning there were two brides.

Aaron and his wife, both Christians, believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. They say that turning down the request wasn’t easy, but not because they were worried about breaking any laws. “I wasn’t even aware at the time that Oregon had anything on the statute that would have prohibited me from turning down the order,” Aaron said.

(Photo: Patchbay Media)

Shortly after that interaction, Rachel and her then-fiancé Laurel Bowman filed a civil complaint against the Kleins for failing to provide them equal service in a place of public accommodation. Then, a firestorm started.

“A group of people—I don’t know what group of people—but they got together and harassed all of our vendors,” Melissa, 33, said.The Real Gay Mafia Their vendors, worried about being driven out of business themselves, took Sweet Cakes by Melissa off their referral list, and asked Melissa to do the same. Without that business, which counted about “65 to 70 percent” of the family’s yearly income, Melissa said they were forced to close the bakery.

That day come on Sept. 1, 2013, one month after the Kleins received an official complaint from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries on behalf of the now-married Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

Moving Out

Melissa now works from home, baking one or two cakes each month. Her five kids—Samantha, 16; Ethan, 13; Elijah, 9; and the 2-year-old twins Everett and Michael—provide easy distractions.

(Photo: Patchbay Media)

To avoid being a place of public accommodation, she can’t do much promotion. “I really haven’t been able to do my cakes … not even close to what I did in the shop,” she said. When Melissa does bake, it’s in her small kitchen, just a few feet away from the garage storing her old ovens, pots and pans as they collect dust.

Aaron, 35, found a new job as a garbage collector.

“From what we were making at the shop, compared to now … our income has dropped drastically,” Melissa said. “It’s about half,” Aaron said. Aaron says he doesn’t expect everyone to agree with his views on marriage.

“This country should be able to tolerate diverse opinions,” he said. “I never once have said that my fight is [to] stop what they call equality. My fight in this situation is religious freedom. It is the ability to live and work by the dictates of my faith without being punished by the government and all Americans should be free to do that.”

(Photo: Patchbay Media)

The Legal Fallout

The Daily Signal reported on Friday that an administrative law judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000 for the damages they caused for Rachel and Laurel.

>>> Read More: State Says Bakers Should Pay $135,000 for Refusing to Bake a Cake for a Same-Sex Wedding

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries pursued charges against the Kleins on behalf of the now married same-sex couple. The Civil Rights Division of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries is responsible for enforcing the state’s public accommodation law, and the judge who issued Friday’s proposed order works for the bureau. “The administrative agency is not a court—it’s actually under the executive branch, not the judicial branch of the government,” Anna Harmon, the attorney representing the Kleins, told The Daily Signal. “[The case] is heard through the administrative law judge.”Picture1

The proposed fine will now go to state Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian, who can either accept it or adjust the amount in issuing a final order, which is expected to arrive this summer. The Kleins have signaled they plan to appeal the judge’s ruling.

042614_SweetCakes

One question concerning the Kleins and their lawyer is why no doctor or medical expert was present during the hearings. To claim $135,000, the couple submitted a list of mental, physical and emotional damages inflicted by the Kleins’ action.Liberalism a mental disorder 2

As The Daily Signal previously reported, some of those symptoms include, “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “surprise,” “weight gain” and “worry.”Really with logo

“There was no expert testimony at the hearing,” Harmon said. “The witnesses at the hearing were the two women who were requesting a cake, one of their mothers, one of their brothers and another family member. There was no doctor, there was no psychologist, no expert testimony at all.”Picture2

>>> After Receiving Over $100K in Donations, Bakers Crowdfunding Page Shut Down

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries did not respond to The Daily Signal’s multiple requests for comment. Paul Thompson, the attorney representing the lesbians, also declined to participate in an interview until a final order is issued.

(Photo: Patchbay Media)

In order to account for $135,000, the state isn’t just going after Aaron and Melissa’s bakery. “The business is gone,”cp 11 Harmon, their lawyer, said. “They don’t have business assets so when we talk about [the fine] it’s personal,” Harmon added. “It means that’s money they would have used to feed their children that they can’t use anymore.” Aaron said the sum is enough to financially ruin their family.

Same Sex Marriage

“The state is now saying that we can award damages above and beyond what you have already suffered … and they have no qualms about doing this,” he said. “It is really showing the state is taking a stance on absolutely obliterating somebody that takes a different stance than the state has.”more evidence

Harmon contends the Kleins can win on an appeal, arguing that a cake is more than just a cake. “I know we are talking about cake, but anybody who has watched TV recently knows that cake is more than just flour and eggs and water and sugar,” she explains. “It’s artwork.” It’s designed and created, and that is what the Supreme Court has called speech.”

(Photo: Patchbay Media)

For Melissa, who spent five years designing all sorts of cakes in her small town bakery, it’s hard to explain without crying. “When I do a cake, the only way I can describe it to people is it’s my canvas,” she said. “I get to create something on this cake and I get to pour myself out onto this cake.” Sweet Cakes by Melissa was a centerpiece of their family, and something that Melissa had hoped to pass on to her five kids. “I actually had the thought of my kids taking over,” she said, as more tears filled up her eyes. Looking back, what she misses most isn’t the bakery, but rather, the moments.

“I know this probably sounds really silly, but when my daughter would be helping out, we’d get into frosting fights,” she said, laughing. “Those were just so much fun. I’d just get her and she’d be covered all over her face.”

(Photo: Patchbay Media)

The Kleins’ daughter, 16-year-old Samantha, has her own memories of the bakery. She started helping in the family business when she was 10. “It was a part of my childhood,” she recalls. “My mom doing cakes and loving helping her with it. It was a lot of fun.” … “And,” says Samantha, “it was pretty sad to see it go.”

Shoving OARLogo Picture6

 

 

 

 

 

Why Today’s Supreme Court Case on Same-Sex Marriage Matters


waving flagJamie Jackson / / April 28, 2015

So why does this matter? Sarah Torre, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, explains what you need to know about the case.

v01

>>> Don’t Silence the 50 Million Who Voted for One Man-One Woman Marriage

Same Sex Marriage

 

 

OARLogo Picture6

What Will Happen To Churches That Don’t Believe In Gay Marriage?


Photo of W. James Antle IIIW. James Antle III, Managing Editor, 04/08/2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/08/what-will-happen-to-churches-that-dont-believe-in-gay-marriage/

Pope Francis kisses a child as he leads a special audience for members of UCIIM, Italian catholic association of teachers, school managers, educators and trainers, in Paul VI’s hall at the Vatican March 14, 2015. REUTERS/Max Rossi

 

Will churches that do not recognize same-sex marriage eventually lose their tax-exempt status? The idea has been floated before. There are many reasons to suspect that this won’t happen. Fifty years of anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sex haven’t had much impact on the Catholic Church’s all-male priesthood.

In various countries and states where gay marriage exists, churches have generally not been forced to recognize them. Churches in the United States refuse to celebrate weddings for people whose marriages would be legal under civil law all the time. Plenty of heterosexuals who can legally marry cannot get married in the Catholic Church, or can only do so with special permission. The government has never treated this as discrimination.

But the two minutes of hate against Indiana revealed that a fairly narrow conception of religious freedom has gone mainstream, while some people seem to have a fairly narrow conception of freedom, period.

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat is likely correct when he says that if conservatives had offered legal same-sex marriage throughout the country in exchange for Christian wedding vendors being allowed to use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act process to possibly (not definitely) decline to participate, as late as Barack Obama’s first term, most liberals would have taken that deal. As what’s politically possible has changed, so has what liberals have demanded on this issue. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. No political movement is required to either accomplish all its long-term goals at once or accomplish none of them.squeeze into mold

On this issue, however, there has been a teensy bit of duplicity involved. In a relatively short period of time, the president went from saying;

  • No gay marriage, God is in the mix to

  • Gay marriage is something I’m in favor of personally, but the policy should be set at the state level and

  • The Supreme Court must discover a constitutional right to gay marriage in all 50 states.

When Republicans proposed a constitutional amendment on gay marriage, many Democratic senators, including Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, said they opposed gay marriage too but we didn’t need the amendment because the federal Defense of Marriage Act was so great. It took less than a decade for their position to morph from “the Defense of Marriage Act is great” to “the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and unjust.” Again, there’s nothing wrong with changing one’s mind. But this looks a bit more calculated.Picture1

Prior to 2010, nobody thought the country was a theocracy because Little Sisters of the Poor didn’t have to pay for IUD coverage.

For the moment, taking away the tax-exempt status of most churches and other houses of worship in America would probably trigger a political backlash too large for any sane politician to contemplate. But if political conditions change? It’s easy for gay marriage and religious freedom to coexist if you believe gay marriage is simply a good and fair policy. But if you sincerely believe that traditional religious teachings on marriage and sex are totally indistinguishable from racism, it becomes untenable to treat those teachings differently than you would treat racism. At that point, it’s even possible houses of worship will run afoul of public accommodations laws. After all, religion was often invoked in defense of racism, right? (Religion was often invoked against racism too and the church was actually ahead of the curve on abolishing slavery.)

Politically, yanking the tax-exempt status of an outlier like Bob Jones University (the school didn’t admit blacks until the 1970s and prohibited interracial dating until 2000) is one thing. The largest denominations in America do not recognize same-sex marriage. The churches that do perform such marriages are much smaller than the ones that don’t. But while there is safety in numbers, the size of these denominations might also make challenging their practices more appealing. The Catholic Church and the United Methodist Church, for example, have both lay members and clergy who dissent from their teachings on marriage. Smaller, more marginal faiths might be easier to push around. They also are likely to have fewer members who will want to revise their denominations’ position on marriage.

Bottom line? Expect no change in how the government deals with churches that don’t do gay marriage for the foreseeable future. But should there be a change, what the journalist Rod Dreher calls the law of merited impossibility will apply: “It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.”Leftist determonation to destroy freedom of religion

W. James Antle III is managing editor of The Daily Caller and author of the book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped? Follow him on Twitter.

 Picture6

Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases in April


Published January 16, 2015, Associated Press

Supreme Court_gay marriage_AP_660.jpg
This Monday, June 30, 2014 file photo shows the Supreme Court building in Washington. (AP)

Setting the stage for a potentially historic ruling, the Supreme Court announced Friday it will decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry everywhere in America under the Constitution.

The justices will take up gay-rights cases that ask them to overturn bans in four states and declare for the entire nation that people can marry the partners of their choice, regardless of gender. The cases will be argued in April, and a decision is expected by late June.

Proponents of same-sex marriage said they expect the court to settle the matter once and for all with a decision that invalidates state provisions that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

“We are now that much closer to being fully recognized as a family, and we are thrilled,” said April DeBoer, a hospital nurse from Hazel Park, Michigan, after the justices said they would hear an appeal from DeBoer and partner Jayne Rowse. “This opportunity for our case to be heard by the Supreme Court gives us and families like ours so much reason to be hopeful.”

Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration would urge the court “to make marriage equality a reality for all Americans.”Shoving

On the other side, advocates for traditional marriage want the court to let the political process play out, rather than have judges order states to allow same-sex couples to marry.

“The people of every state should remain free to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws,” said Austin R. Nimocks, senior counsel for the anti-gay marriage group Alliance Defending Freedom.Same Sex Marriage

Same-sex couples can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia.

That number is nearly double what it was just three months ago, when the justices initially declined to hear gay marriage appeals from five states seeking to preserve their bans on same-sex marriage. The effect of the court’s action in October was to make final several pro-gay rights rulings in the lower courts.

Now there are just 14 states in which same-sex couples cannot wed. The court’s decision to get involved is another marker of the rapid change that has redefined societal norms in the space of a generation.

The court will be weighing in on major gay rights issues for the fourth time in in 27 years. In the first of those, in 1986, the court upheld Georgia’s anti-sodomy law in a devastating defeat for gay rights advocates.

But the three subsequent rulings, all written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, were major victories for gay men and lesbians. In its most recent case in 2013, the court struck down part of a federal anti-gay marriage law in a decision that has paved the way for a wave of lower court rulings across the country in favor of same-sex marriage rights.

James Esseks, leader of the American Civil Liberties Union’s same-sex marriage efforts, recalled the first same-sex marriage that came to the court more than 40 years ago from Minnesota. There, the justices dismissed a gay couple’s appeal in a single sentence.

“It did not go well because the country wasn’t ready yet. But the country is ready for the freedom to marry today,” Esseks said.more evidence

Lying to mask evil intentions

The court is extending the time it usually allots for argument from an hour to two-and-a-half hours. The justices will consider two related questions. The first is whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The other is whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

The appeals before the court come from gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The federal appeals court that oversees those four states upheld their same-sex marriage bans in November, reversing pro-gay rights rulings of federal judges in all four states. It was the first, and so far only, appellate court to rule against same-sex marriage since the high court’s 2013 decision.

Ten other states also prohibit such unions. In Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota and Texas, judges have struck down anti-gay marriage laws, but they remain in effect pending appeals. In Missouri, same-sex couples can marry in St. Louis and Kansas City only.

Louisiana is the only other state that has seen its gay marriage ban upheld by a federal judge. There have been no rulings on lawsuits in Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska and North Dakota.

Romans One

Freedom with Prayer

2014 Political Cartoons, Drawings and Presentations You Might Have Missed


Master MArtinLuther King Jr. oct172014 02 Teaching children to follow Jesus greatest fraud Cold watching gun-control-cartoon-club-knife Let me be clear mission accomplished WMD-in-Iraq gay-marriage-debate-continues Differences Human bomb Islamofascism-300x199 Winston Churchill We Pledge Allegience to Obama Walking Eagle ObamaDictator-300x204 PS_0807W_RECESSION_t ObamaWreckingBall2 strategy Terrorist lives matter The Great Divider yes-we-cannibus Obamacare 02 Obamacare Suppositories Signed Up wheels coming off Dangers I have a steady Job I Never Met Sharpton Jackson 02 The Personal Wealth of Al Sharpton the-only-people-keeping-racism-alive-vik-battaile-politics-1354496075 8 abortion hilary-rosen-vs-ann-romney I sell Women obama isis pays less 2nd term kill isis money worth spending the education of children

Mr. Liberal, Which Part of ‘Freedom of Religion’ Do You Not Understand?


MId Term drawing

Michael CantrellMichael CantrellOctober 23, 2014

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/10/mr-liberal-part-freedom-religion-understand/

It’s been said by plenty of folks smarter than me, that liberalism is a mental disorder. As time has progressed, and my engagement with folks who hold to this ideology has increased, I’m becoming more inclined to agree with that diagnosis.Liberalism is a mental disorder

I recently came across a news story that contained such an egregious violation of the First Amendment that I was skeptical to believe what I was reading was true. After six years of living under Obama, you’re probably wondering what in the world could’ve been so shocking that it left me in utter disbelief. I mean, come on, right? President Obama and his cronies practically hold the world record for violating the Constitution. It’s become so common place you’d think I would be desensitized to it.

Normally, you’d be right, but this is seriously bad. I don’t mean bad as in “good” either. What kind of bad do I mean? I’m talking end of the republic kind of bad.

Allow me to explain. If you haven’t already heard this story, prepare to have your jaw hit the floor.

Two ordained Christian ministers in Idaho recently declined to marry a gay couple, which is an action that could land them in serious hot water with local governing authorities.

Apparently, since Idaho’s gay marriage ban was struck down by the Supreme Court, the ministers are in violation of a city “nondiscrimination” ordinance.

What’s the penalty for such a crime you ask? How about 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine PER DAY that the ministers refuse to conduct a same-sex marriage.

police_state

Imperial President ObamaWelcome to Obama’s America.

It’s obvious the liberal brain dead zombies running this burned out berg lack a fundamental understanding of the First Amendment and the religious protections it grants to all citizens. Let’s take a quick peek at that glorious document we Americans call the Constitution and see what exactly the First Amendment says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By golly, look at that! The government is not allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion. It seems to me that the “free exercise of religion” would cover something like refusing to officiate a same-sex marriage, seeing as how that violates a Christian’s conscience due to beliefs taught in the Bible, the holy book of the Christian faith.cp 11

But wait, you say. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The law in question is one created by LOCAL government.

I’m glad you brought that up! Not only is the law created by the governing body in Coeur D’Alene–that’s the name of the community where this law was made–in violation of the First Amendment, it also goes against the Idaho Constitution.

Article I Section 4 of the Idaho Constitution says:

GUARANTY OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship shall forever be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege, or capacity on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, or excuse acts of licentiousness or justify polygamous or other pernicious practices, inconsistent with morality or the peace or safety of the state; nor to permit any person, organization, or association to directly or indirectly aid or abet, counsel or advise any person to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination, or pay tithes against his consent; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship. Bigamy and polygamy are forever prohibited in the state, and the legislature shall provide by law for the punishment of such crimes.

At this point, I think it’s safe to ask the burning question on most people’s minds: Mr. Liberal, what part of “freedom of religion” do you not understand?comment 03

It’s clearly laid out for all the world to see. This law created by the folks in Coeur D’Alene is unconstitutional and illegal, making it null and void. You cannot toss someone in the clink for refusing to do something that goes against their religious beliefs. It’s that simple.

With the clarity of the illegality of the law these ministers are accused of breaking firmly established, why in the world is this still being discussed?

Simple.

ShovingSame-sex marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with actual marriage. If it did, then homosexuals would be lining up to open up their own chapels and administer these ceremonies themselves, or go to the county courthouse and purchase a license, which they are now legally allowed to do.

No, this is about FORCING the whole world to accept a person’s lifestyle as normal, despite all evidence–including religion, philosophy, and science–saying otherwise. Why would a group of people be trying so hard to make the rest of us believe what they are doing is normal if it wasn’t, in fact, abnormal? It just wouldn’t make sense.

The problem here is that I don’t have to accept anything. I don’t accept the drug addict’s lifestyle of self-destruction, nor that of an adulterer. What makes a homosexual lifestyle any different? If I’m being forced to accept this “alternative way of life” who’s to say we shouldn’t be forced to accept the lifestyle of a pedophile. After all, they can’t help it. They were born that way.

If this were really just about marriage and not forcing the rest of society to accept their sexual preference as “normal,” they would be celebrating all of the victories they’ve been gifted from the Supreme Court and getting hitched in record numbers. They wouldn’t be paying their detractors or those who disagree with their lifestyle any mind. They wouldn’t need to.

The bottom line is that every single American, including the homosexual, is guaranteed the right of freedom of religion. Any law that attempts to force someone to abandon their religious principles or go against their conscience is a violation of this God-given right, and as it is a right protected under the Constitution, any such law is 100 percent invalid.

This is a dangerous time for America. Christians and conservatives across the country need to stand up boldly, loudly, brashly, and demand their rights be protected by pressuring the state of Idaho to declare this ludicrous ordinance unconstitutional. If this is not opposed, I’m afraid that we’ll see bogus laws like this spread like wildfire across the country, and one of the central tenets of our great republic will crumble before our eyes.

About the Author; Michael Cantrell

Michael Cantrell is a conservative journalist/blogger with over 8 years of professional writing experience writing for some of the largest publications on the Internet. He has participated in several campaigns to repeal Obamacare, worked with Tea Party candidates running for Congress, and more. Michael is a staunch constitutionalist and lover of American history.
Article collective closing

Former Homosexual Reveals ‘Unmitigated Disaster of Gay Marriage’


http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/44691-former-homosexual-reveals-unmitigated-disaster-of-gay-marriage?utm_medium=MostPopularArticles_RightColBottom

 7/18/2014 David Kyle Foster

David Kyle Foster

David Kyle Foster

For over 10 years I lived the homosexual lifestyle, and for 34 years I have not. And there are very good reasons for that difference. To those who suggest that I never was homosexual, my response is, “Does sleeping with over 1,000 men count?”

Oh yes. I was homosexual, though like most, I never wanted to have such attractions. I saw the narcissism and arrested emotional development all around me, and in me. Guys flitting around like Peter Pan were sometimes cute and funny, and certainly nonthreatening, but I wanted to be a grown up. I wanted to be a man. I wanted to be strong, solid, stable and reliable.

I recognized the obsession with youth and beauty that drove their fantasies and lusts and knew that once I entered my thirties, the thrill of being wanted would quickly come to an end. I cringed at the epidemic of perverse sexual behaviors commonly practiced and celebrated by gay culture and wanted nothing to do with them.

Such behaviors were so obviously perverse. Simple anatomical design declared it. A man was designed to interact sexually with a woman. That’s the design. And when sex is practiced outside of that design, physical damage and a legion of diseases are unleashed—not to mention the judgments of the Lord described in Romans 1:24-32: “God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual immorality … God gave them over to shameful lusts … receiving into themselves the due penalty for their perversion … God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done,” and in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “the sexually immoral … those who practice homosexuality … will not inherit the Kingdom of God.”

God created a man and a woman to become one flesh in a lifelong covenant of love (i.e., “marriage”), and to be fruitful and multiply when possible. God

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

Click on image to see movie trailer and more

invented marriage. He designed it as a prefigurement of the marriage between Jesus and His Bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32), and laid out its parameters from the dawn of time. Even cultures that do not know Him have followed that design from the beginning. There is no ambiguity about His design nor His description of it in the Scriptures. Indeed, every departure from that model is universally condemned and forbidden by Him, for what it does to our bodies, our souls and to the image of God that is stamped into the one flesh, marital union of male and female.

Having same-sex desires is a great trial—there is no doubt about it. The feelings have as great an intensity as those found in the alcoholic for alcohol, the drug addict for drugs, the smoker for nicotine. And in all such cases, it seems unfair to the natural mind that God would allow us to have such intense desires yet not allow us to act on them.

The idea floated by so-called “gay theology” that God created people to be homosexual (i.e., that He is the cause for such desires) is as ridiculous for the homosexual as it is for the drug addict. The Scriptures are clear about what God designed and what He desires. They are also clear that because of the sinful actions of our forebears, we are born with a sin nature that pulls us strongly in various destructive directions. Homosexual desire, born from a complicated convergence of our fallen nature, idolatry, rebellion, temperament, environment, experiences and developmental factors is just one more way that happens.

It does no good to pretend that it is good and natural and holy. That’s called denial. Statistics overflow with evidence that homosexual sex causes damage to body, soul and spirit. It actually damages the body of the partner. It tears at the body in ways that result in homosexual sex being the number one risk factor for contracting AIDS in this country. In fact, an entire cottage industry of scientific study and medical care has arisen from the proliferation of gay sex in our modern culture.

Homosexual behavior also tears at the soul, causing much higher rates for substance abuse, suicide, depression, domestic violence, early death—even in the most gay-friendly regions of the globe. Why? Because active homosexuals are trying to find something through gay relationships that can never be found there. The happiness that they seek can only be found in submitting their sexuality to the Lordship of Christ and allowing Him to bring healing to the broken areas that have caused their homosexual desires. Yes, it’s a slow and sometimes arduous path to take, just as it is for the addict, but the only one that leads to joy, peace and eternal life with God.

All that to say—the term “gay marriage” is an oxymoron. It is an invention of broken man in defiance against the expressed desire and design of God for mankind. It is the fallen creature trying to tell the omniscient Creator how things should be. Even the misnamed “gay Christian”—those who practice homosexuality without repentance and therefore are not Christian—are examples of man praising God with his lips while his heart is far from Him (Matt. 15:7-9)—calling Him Lord, Lord, while refusing to do what He says (Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46). To invent a form of marriage that defies the natural and spiritual order is insanity and can only lead to the destruction of those involved, and according to Scripture, even the society that allows it to happen (Gen. 19:1-29; Jude 5-7; Rom. 1:32).

We all know that marriage is in a bad state these days. Our population has laid the groundwork for faux marriages by practicing adultery and in other ways rebelling against the meaning and purpose of sex and marriage. But inventing and sanctioning homosexual marriages is a logarithmic jump in rebellion and consequent disaster.

In a high percentage of marriages these days, the children will spend a part of their childhood without their original mother or father, and that is very sad and can be very harmful for them. But in so-called “gay marriages” you are guaranteeing that the children will grow up without a mother or father in the home. You are guaranteeing it! You are state-sanctioning that deprivation and becoming a co-conspirator in the consequent damage to their well-being.

And yet the gay-supporting media presses on with its relentless drumbeat, promoting homosexual behavior, relationships and so-called marriage just as ferociously as it promotes the destruction of children in their mother’s wombs.Shoving

A newly released two-hour documentary called Such Were Some of YouSuch Were Some of You attempts to counter that agenda with truth. In it, 29 former homosexuals expose the facts about homosexuality, its causes and how Jesus has set them free from it.

The film opens with people on the street giving their opinion about claims that are made by activist homosexuals in the press, followed by expert teaching on those same questions by Christian leaders like Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Neil T. Anderson, as well as theological correctives from the worlds top scholar on the biblical texts concerning sexual behavior, Dr. Robert Gagnon.

But what makes this film so powerful are the moving stories of being saved, set free, healed and delivered from the brokenness of homosexuality by those who have gone through that great trial. With love and sensitivity for friends still trapped in the gay lifestyle, they also describe the process by which God has brought healing to the brokenness that created their same-sex desires in the first place.

As the Scriptures promise in Revelation 12, they have overcome by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony. God also says in Rev 21:6-7: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.”

And to the reader, hear the word of God found in 1 Corinthians 6:11 (speaking of practicing homosexuals, among others): “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Click here to see the trailer of Such Were Some of You. Click on image below to view trailer:

born gay

David Kyle Fosteris a graduate of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M-Div) and Trinity School for Ministry (D-Min). His autobiography, Love Hunger, has just been released by Chosen Books, and he is the author of Sexual Healing and Transformed Into His Image. He is also the executive director of Mastering Life Ministries and the producer/director of Such Were Some of You.

Article collective closing

VIDEO: Hillary Explodes at NPR Radio When Questioned About Homosexual Marriage Flip-Flop


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/13/video-hillary-explodes-at-npr-radio-when-questioned-about-homosexual-marriage-flip-flop/

June 13, 2014 By

HILLARY 
Hillary Clinton seemingly cannot stand the heat of being asked tough questions, not even being able to handle follow-up questions by Hillary-friendly, government funded, NPR radio.

Hillary blew up at NPR radio host Terry Gross this week when asked about her flip-flop (or is it “evolving?) stance on homosexual marriage, telling the host she was “playing with my words.”

“Would you say your view evolved since the 90s, or that the American public evolved, allowing you to state your real view?” asked radio host Terry Gross, referring to Clinton’s previous support for traditional marriage.

Clinton, being evasive as Clintons tend to do, gave the strange response, “I think I’m an American, I think that we have all evolved, and it’s been one of the fastest, most sweeping transformations that I’m aware of.”

Gross then insinuated that Clinton arrived late to the homosexual marriage party, an accusation that lit the volatile former Obama Secretary of State up.

“I understand,” Gross said, “but a lot of people believed in it already back in the nineties. A lot of people already supported gay marriage.”

“To be fair Terry, not that many,” Clinton said sounding irritated. “Were there activists who were ahead of their time? Well that was true in every human rights and civil rights movement but the vast majority of Americans were just waking up to this issue.”

Clinton continued to avoid directly answering Gross’s question, using deflection tactics with answers like, “Somebody is always first, Terry. Somebody is always out front, and thank goodness they are. “

Finally, the hot-tempered Clinton blew up at the host, attempting to turn the tables on the NPR host, saying, “I have to say, I think you are being very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.”

LISTEN BELOW

hillary
Hillary ClintonVOTE 02

 

World Vision: Why We’re Hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages


World Vision: Why We're Hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages

<<<Image: Courtesy of World Vision U.S.;President Richard Stearns

[Update: Added comments from board members and Russell Moore.]

World Vision’s American branch will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman.

Abstinence outside of marriage remains a rule. But a policy change announced Monday [March 24] will now permit gay Christians in legal same-sex marriages to be employed at one of America’s largest Christian charities.

In an exclusive interview, World Vision U.S. president Richard Stearns explained to Christianity Today the rationale behind changing this “condition of employment,” whether financial or legal pressures were involved, and whether other Christian organizations with faith-based hiring rules should follow World Vision’s lead.

Stearns asserts that the “very narrow policy change” should be viewed by others as “symbolic not of compromise but of [Christian] unity.” He even hopes it will inspire unity elsewhere among Christians.

[Editor’s note: All subsequent references to “World Vision” refer to its U.S. branch only, not its international umbrella organization.]

In short, World Vision hopes to dodge the division currently “tearing churches apart” over same-sex relationships by solidifying its long-held philosophy as a parachurch organization: to defer to churches and denominations on theological issues, so that it can focus on uniting Christians around serving the poor.

Given that more churches and states are now permitting same-sex marriages (including World Vision’s home state of Washington), the issue will join divorce/remarriage, baptism, and female pastors among the theological issues that the massive relief and development organization sits out on the sidelines.

World Vision’s board was not unanimous, acknowledged Stearns, but was “overwhelmingly in favor” of the change.

“Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues,” he said. “It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage.”

Stearns took pains to emphasize what World Vision is not communicating by the policy change.

“It’s easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there,” he said. “This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate. Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and support.”

“We’re not caving to some kind of pressure. We’re not on some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us,” said Stearns. “This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues. We’re an operational arm of the global church, we’re not a theological arm of the church.

“This is simply a decision about whether or not you are eligible for employment at World Vision U.S. based on this single issue, and nothing more.”

Yet the decision is still likely to be regarded as noteworthy by other evangelical ministries. Aside from World Vision’s influential size—it took in more than a billion dollars in revenue last year, serves an estimated 100 million people in 100 countries, and ranks among America’s top 10 charities overall—World Vision also recently fought for the right of Christian organizations to hire and fire based on faith statements all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court—and won. It also opposed a 2012 attempt by USAID to “strongly encourage” faith-based contractors to stop discriminating against gays and lesbians in order to receive federal funds.

In other words, other Christian organizations look to World Vision for leadership on defending faith hiring practices. Stearns acknowledges this, but wants observers to understand why World Vision is voluntarily changing its own policy.

Stearns said World Vision has never asked about sexual orientation when interviewing job candidates. Instead, the organization screens employees for their Christian faith, asking if they can affirm the Apostles’ Creed or World Vision’s Trinitarian statement of faith.

Yet World Vision has long had a Christian conduct policy for employees that “holds a very high bar for all manner of conduct,” said Stearns. Regarding sexuality activity, World Vision has required abstinence for all single employees, and fidelity for all married employees.

However, World Vision now has staff from more than 50 denominations—a handful of which have sanctioned same-sex marriages or unions in recent years, including the United Church of Christ, The Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Meanwhile, same-sex marriage is now legal in 17 states plus the District of Columbia, and federal judges have struck down bans in five other states (Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia, and—most recently—Michigan) as well as required Kentucky to recognize such marriages performed in other states. (All six rulings are stayed until the appeals process is complete.)

Stearns said World Vision’s board has faced a new question in recent years: “What do we do about someone who applies for a job at World Vision who is in a legal same-sex marriage that may have been sanctioned and performed by their church? Do we deny them employment?

“Under our old conduct policy, that would have been a violation,” said Stearns. “The new policy will not exclude someone from employment if they are in a legal same-sex marriage.”

Stearns said the new policy reflects World Vision’s parachurch and multi-denominational nature.

“Denominations disagree on many, many things: on divorce and remarriage, modes of baptism, women in leadership roles in the church, beliefs on evolution, etc.,” he said. “So our practice has always been to defer to the authority and autonomy of local churches and denominational bodies on matters of doctrine that go beyond the Apostles’ Creed and our statement of faith. We unite around our [Trinitarian beliefs], and we have always deferred to the local church on these other matters.”

The reason the prohibition existed in the first place? “It’s kind of a historical issue,” said Stearns. “Same-sex marriage has only been a huge issue in the church in the last decade or so. There used to be much more unity among churches on this issue, and that’s changed.”

And the change has been painful to watch. “It’s been heartbreaking to watch this issue rip through the church,” he said. “It’s tearing churches apart, tearing denominations apart, tearing Christian colleges apart, and even tearing families apart. Our board felt we cannot jump into the fight on one side or another on this issue. We’ve got to focus on our mission. We are determined to find unity in our diversity.”

Highlighting the church/parachurch distinction: Board member and pastor John Crosby, who served as interim leader when a number of churches split off from the Presbyterian Church (USA) after the denomination dropped a celibacy requirement for gay clergy in 2011. At a conference that laid the foundation of the new Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians, the Minnesota megachurch pastor stated, “We have tried to create such a big tent trying to make everybody happy theologically. I fear the tent has collapsed without a center.”

However, as a World Vision board member, Crosby didn’t have a problem voting for the policy change. “It’s a matter of trying to decide what the core mission of the organization is,” he said.

Crosby, who leads Christ Presbyterian Church in Edina, Minnesota, told CT that the decision was about making sure that World Vision is focusing on its mission to eliminate poverty worldwide. World Vision stretches across countless cultural and theological divides in a hundred countries, and so the issue of theology and how to interpret Scripture should be left to the local church, he said.

“Many of us support World Vision specifically because of its Christian identity. While there are many other good relief organizations, it’s the faith component of World Vision that makes it distinctive for us,” said Crosby. “[But] how can we represent ourselves as a Christian organization in such a diverse world? That’s what we’re trying to work through on a daily basis.”

Board member and seminary professor Soong-Chan Rah told CT the decision to leave theology to others “honors the church as a whole.” “It is not a statement in a particular direction, but it is trying to acknowledge the proper relationship between the church and the parachurch,” he said. “If there is something we can learn from [this], it is the value of having conversations and commitment to prayer, over not just this particular issue but all controversial issues that divide the church.”

Stearns was adamant the change will not impact World Vision’s identity or work in the field. “World Vision is committed to our Christian identity. We are absolutely resolute about every employee being followers of Jesus Christ. We are not wavering on that,” he said.

“This is also not about compromising the authority of Scripture,” said Stearns. “People can say, ‘Scripture is very clear on this issue,’ and my answer is, ‘Well ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree with that statement.’ The church is divided on this issue. And we are not the local church. We are an operational organization uniting Christians around a common mission to serve the poor in the name of Christ.”

In recent years, World Vision and other evangelical organizations that partner with Uncle Sam to deliver humanitarian aid overseas voiced concern over USAID attempts to “strongly encourage” all contractors to develop anti-discrimination policies covering sexual orientation or risk losing federal funding.

“Concerns over government funding had no impact on this decision,” said Stearns, noting that World Vision caps federal funding at 35 percent of its cash revenues. “We fought for the whole Christian community, reminding USAID that faith-based organizations have a religious exemption and are not required to follow government hiring guidelines.

“If the U.S. government ever requires us to give up our religious hiring rights in exchange for grants, we would walk away from U.S. grants. World Vision’s ministry is not for sale.”

World Vision’s 2010 victory before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on faith-based hiring practices was watched closely by many Christian organizations (500 people signed up within 24 hours for a related ECFA webinar in April 2010). World Vision general counsel Steve McFarland later gave a series of ECFA webinars advising how other ministries could best structure their statements of faith to defend their hiring practices.

Yet Stearns said World Vision is not suggesting other ministries should now follow its lead.

“We made this decision for our organization based on who we are. Every organization has to come to its own conclusion,” he said. “We are still passionate about protecting religious hiring rights—making sure that every Christian organization gets to decide this issue for themselves and not have the government decide it for them.” (The latest example: World Vision’s amicus brief on Hobby Lobby’s Supreme Court case against Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate.)

“We’re not doing this for any legal reasons,” he said. “If we wanted to, we would fight another battle on this all the way to the Supreme Court.”

So the question becomes: Will supporters, particularly theologically conservative ones, let World Vision adopt a neutral stance on same-sex marriage? One of the first prominent voices out of the gate: Russell Moore, who tweeted, “I’m glad Carl Henry didn’t live to see this,” and promptly penned a reaction, concluding: “World Vision is a good thing to have, unless the world is all you can see.”

Maintaining neutrality on such divisive issues is proving increasingly tricky for Christian organizations with broad coalitions. The most recent example is Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, which has declared neutrality on abortion, same-sex marriage, and guns as it seeks to encompass more Christians yet preserve its diverging base of 2.5 million Lutherans. Yet Thrivent’s theologically conservative wing has not been pleased.

And the policy change comes as World Vision has reduced its U.S. workforce by 10 percent over the past 15 months as expenses have risen and government grants have decreased, reports The News Tribune in nearby Tacoma, Wash. “The last 12 to 24 months have been among the most challenging of any we have ever faced,” Stearns wrote to 408,000 donors in a January letter that marked “the first time Stearns had sent out a letter asking child sponsors to increase their giving due to cutbacks,” the newspaper reported.

Stearns hopes World Vision will not experience similar division like Thrivent and risk losing conservative supporters as a result.

“I don’t want to predict the reaction we will get,” he said. “I think we’ve got a very persuasive series of reasons for why we’re doing this, and it’s my hope that all of our donors and partners will understand it, and will agree with our exhortation to unite around what unites us. But we do know this is an emotional issue in the American church. I’m hoping not to lose supporters over the change. We’re hoping that they understand that what we’ve done is focused on church unity and our mission.”

And Stearns believes that World Vision can successfully remain neutral on same-sex marriage.

“I think you have to be neutral on hundreds of doctrinal issues that could divide an organization like World Vision,” he said. “One example: divorce and remarriage. Churches have different opinions on this. We’ve chosen not to make that a condition of employment at World Vision. If we were not deferring to local churches, we would have a long litmus test [for employees]. What do you believe about evolution? Have you been divorced and remarried? What is your opinion on women in leadership? Were you dunked or sprinkled? And at the end of the interview, how many candidates would still be standing?

“It is not our role to take a position on all these issues and make these issues a condition of employment.”

Stearns said he doesn’t expect any outcry among World Vision’s 100 country affiliates, since World Vision International allows each country to set its own hiring policies appropriate to its local legal context. Even in Uganda, where a high-profile new law criminalizing gays and lesbians has been opposed by World Vision Uganda, it stated: “The issue of same-sex relationships will neither prevent us from serving children, families and communities around the world, nor obstruct our collaboration with one another and with our partner organizations.”

The policy change will also not affect World Vision’s partnership with ministries that maintain current faith-based bans on same-sex behavior. “This is a very narrow policy change. It’s strictly about whether this issue should be a condition of employment at World Vision.”

How would Stearns respond to critics who bemoan the decision as yet another Christian organization caving before the advancing gay rights movement?

“We’re not trying to do anything that’s symbolic for the rest of the church,” he said. “But if we’re making a statement at all, I hope it’s a statement about unity.

“I hope it’s a statement that says when Christ left, he gave us the Great Commission [to make disciples] and the Great Commandment [to love others as ourselves], and we’re trying to do just that,” said Stearns. “Bridging the differences we have, and coming together in our unity.”

Stearns has even written books on this subject. “In some manner we haven’t finished Christ’s mission for the church because we’ve been divided and distracted by too many other things,” he said. “We’ve got to find our way to unity beyond diversity in the Christian church.

“I know the Evil One would like nothing better than for World Vision to be hobbled and divided on this issue, so that we lose our focus on the Great Commandment and the Great Commission,” said Stearns. “And the board is determined not to let that happen.

“I hope if it’s symbolic of anything, it is symbolic of how we can come together even though we disagree. We—meaning other Christians—are not the enemy. We have to find way to come together around our core beliefs to accomplish the mission that Christ has given the church.

“We feel positive about what we’ve done. Our motives are pure,” said Stearns. “We’re not doing this because of any outside pressure. We’re not doing this to get more revenue. We’re really doing this because it’s the right thing to do, and it’s the right thing to do for unity within the church.

“I’m hoping this may inspire unity among others as well,” he concluded. “To say how can we come together across some differences and still join together as brothers and sisters in Christ in our common mission of building the kingdom.”

MY TWO CENTS;

This has been one of the top problems in the Evangelical Church worldwide in recent years; understanding what it means to accept Jesus as LORD and Savior. The very word “LORD” is defined as “Master”, Owner”. According to scripture, making Jesus the LORD of your life means you submit to Him as MASTER-OWNER. As The Holy Spirit taught through the Apostle Paul that we are no longer privy to own own way of thinking, we belong to HIM and HIS thinking. We are to HAVE THE MIND OF CHRIST, that means thinking His thoughts, mimicking HIS actions, and conducting our lives as HE desires.

For World Vision to say that they are just changing their hiring policies in order to accommodate CHRISTIAN homosexuals, is in itself a oxymoron. The two are mutually EXCLUSIVE.

This decision of World Vision USA is a great example of a “GOOD IDEA’ originated by unregenerate man, instead of a “GOD IDEA” originating from the throne of God.

Jerry Broussard

Obama calls homosexuality one of our ‘fundamental freedoms’ in statement slamming Ugandan bill


I remember a time when 80% of the Gospel ministered around the World originated in the United States. Now the nations we sent our missionaries to are now looking at the United States as a great bastion of evil. We have a lot to be ashamed. – Jerry Broussard

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

LifeSiteNews Banner

http://www.lifesitenews.com

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/obama-calls-homosexuality-one-of-our-fundamental-freedoms-in-presidential-s

by Ben Johnson

Mon Feb 17, 2014 16:21 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 17, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – President Barack Obama has elevated the right to have sex with a member of the same sex to the level of universal “fundamental freedoms” in a new presidential statement criticizing Uganda. But critics say his promotion of homosexuality in a continent that overwhelmingly opposes that behavior amounts to a form of liberal “cultural imperialism.”

Obama wrote on Sunday that he opposed a proposed bill in Uganda that would criminalize same-sex “marriages” and impose life imprisonment for repeated homosexual acts, among other provisions, because “as a country and a people, the United States has consistently stood for the protection of fundamental freedoms and universal human rights.”

Obama said the bill represents “a serious setback for all those around the world who share a commitment to freedom, justice, and equal rights.”

He added that he had “conveyed” the message that “enacting this legislation will complicate our valued relationship with Uganda.”

His reaction came after Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni said last Friday that, after nearly two months deliberation, he would sign legislation that makes conducting a same-sex “wedding” punishable with seven years in prison. Infecting others with AIDS, having sex with minors, or repeated homosexual acts may earn life imprisonment. An earlier version of the bill called for the death penalty, but the provision was removed.

According to a spokesman, Museveni decided to sign the bill after scientists told him “there is no definitive gene responsible for homosexuality.” He added that homosexual prostitution is “what the president wants to prevent,” especially after Presidential Adviser on Science Dr. Richard Tushemereirwe said that all homosexuality had “serious public health consequences.”

American observers said, while they may take a different approach than Museveni, President Obama’s remarks are an act of cultural hubris.

“His arrogance is breathtaking,” Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, director and senior fellow of Concerned Women for America‘s Beverly LaHaye Institute, told LifeSiteNews. The “president repeatedly insists that his personal values and beliefs are equated with the nation’s values and beliefs. When he insists that those controversial ideas constitute a human right, the president is saying that the deeply-held religious beliefs of many Americans are irrelevant.”

He is also disregarding the views of most Africans, they say. An estimated 72 percent of all African nations have passed or are in the process of passing laws restricting public homosexual behavior.

Crouse told LifeSiteNews that President Obama’s actions are a form of “cultural imperialism – exporting the sexual crusade of a very small minority of Americans with outsized influence,” who have tried “to tear down the moral foundations of our nation as well as the rest of the world.”

President Obama in a tense moment with Senegalese President President Obama in a tense moment with Senegalese President Mackey Sall

Museveni’s spokesman, Ofwono Opondo, said, “This bill is very popular both within the parliament and Ugandan society,” something they see “as a measure to protect Ugandans from social deviants.” Opposition to homosexuality is a pan-African concept held by Christians and Muslims.

“Obama of all people should realize how offensive his position on homosexuality is to devout Muslims,” Dr. Crouse told LifeSiteNews.

President Obama has frayed relations with African leaders before. During his $100 million African trip last summer, President Obama provoked a clash with the president of Senegal, Macky Sall, over whether gay “marriage” should be legal. In August, Obama told Jay Leno on The Tonight Show that nations like Russia, which forbid same-sex “marriage,” “are violating the basic morality,” adding that he had “no patience for countries” that do not affirm “gays or lesbians or transgender persons.”

Just last month Secretary of State John Kerry condemned Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan for signing a bill that imposes a 14-year prison sentence on anyone involved in a same-sex “wedding,” as well as prohibiting public displays of homosexual behavior.

President Obama put his bully pulpit, and the full weight of the U.S. government, behind promoting the homosexual agenda worldwide. In 2011, Western nations withheld nearly $350 million from Malawi because the nation banned homosexual activity. Wikileaks revealed the Obama administration coordinated with homosexual activists to promote the LGBT agenda in Sierra Leone.

African leaders have responded with sometimes pointed criticism of the president and, sometimes, the United States.

In April 2012, Gambian President Yahya Jammeh said that his people would “rather eat grass than accept this ungodly evil attitude,” even if it meant foregoing Western aid.

Last summer the deputy president of Kenya, William Ruto, rebuffed Obama by saying his nation is “sovereign and God-fearing,” and Obama’s promotion of homosexuality “goes against our customs and traditions.” Cardinal John Njue, Archbishop of Nairobi, said that those, like President Obama, “who have already ruined their society … let them not become our teachers.”

“It is unseemly for an American president to dictate to other countries what their cultural, moral and religious traditions ought to be,” Dr. Crouse told LifeSiteNews. “And it is hypocritical for him on the one hand to say America is unexceptional and bow to other national leaders and then on the other hand, seemingly from a position of moral superiority, tell other nations that their beliefs are inferior to his supposedly enlightened, exalted views.”

“The homosexual activists are not content with acceptance and respect as human beings,” she said. “They, and now our president, are forcing the world to approve and mainstream their homosexuality.”

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: