Posted on 05/12/2009 1:42:15 PM PDT by wagglebee
As more states—like Iowa—approve same-sex “marriage,” conservatives are claiming that freedom of religion is in peril. Same-sex “marriage” supporters accuse them of engaging in hysterical gay-bating. Who’s telling the truth?
Let me share some stories with you from an excellent news broadcast produced by National Public Radio. Then you decide.
Two women decided to hold their civil union ceremony at a New Jersey pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. This Methodist group told the women they could not “marry” in any building used for religious purposes. The Rev. Scott Hoffman said a theological principle—that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman—was at stake.
The women filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. The Methodists said the First Amendment protected their right to practice their faith without being punished by the government. But punish the Methodists is exactly what New Jersey did. It revoked their tax exemption—a move that cost them $20,000.
Then there’s the case of the Christian physicians who refused to provide in vitro fertilization treatment to a woman in a lesbian relationship. The doctors referred her to their partners, who were willing to provide the treatment. But that wasn’t good enough. The woman sued. The California Supreme Court agreed with the woman, saying that the doctors’ religious beliefs didn’t give them the right to refuse the controversial treatment.
In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was told they had to accept homosexual couples in their adoption service, or get out of the adoption business. They chose correctly—get out of the business.
In Mississippi, a mental health counselor was sued for refusing to provide therapy to a woman looking to improve her lesbian relationship. The counselor’s employers fired her—a move that was backed up by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In New York, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University refused to allow same-sex couples to live in married student housing, in keeping with the school’s orthodox Jewish teachings. But in 2001, the New York State Supreme Court forced them to do so anyway—even though New York has no same-sex “marriage” law.
In Albuquerque, a same-sex couple asked a Christian wedding photographer to film their commitment ceremony—and sued the photographer when she declined. An online adoption service was forced to stop doing business in California when a same-sex couple sued the service for refusing, on religious grounds, to assist them.
Convinced? Clearly, homosexual “marriage” and religious liberty cannot co-exist—because gay activists will not allow them to. As marriage expert Maggie Gallagher puts it, same-sex “marriage” advocates claim that religious faith “itself is a form of bigotry.”
Tune in tomorrow, for I want you to learn how you can help protect both our religious rights and marriage itself. I know this may sound alarmist, but it’s true. If we don’t work to stop this juggernaut, we may soon find ourselves hunted down at work, at school, and even at church—as others have been—by those determined to force us to accept as a moral good what God calls evil.
We are ALREADY experiencing this.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
No, the correct course would have been to challenge this in court on First Amendment grounds. It still rankles me that the Church did not do this.
and as this report comes out there is now lawsuits saying that triad marriage should be made legal.
Infact why stop there, let 10 women marry 5 guys for a family.
As for those states what have this sham marriage, well why not put it to a vote in those states seeing as the homosexual loons keep saying that they are accepted.
poll booths are one thing and not saying something publicly are another aren’t they homosexuals.
They might have this sham marriage but they are not certainly married in the eyes of the majority of those states or the country
This is nothing more than big government butting its various noses into areas where they don’t belong especially so in the case of individuals and private businesses choosing to do as they wish.
And the 2nd Amendment also is in peril. Where now days can people actually bear arms?
Thanks for posting the entire article.
Wouldn’t it be a grand display of episcopal leadership for the bishop(s) to order Catholic Charities to proceed as usual and then dare state officials to arrest them?
bookmark
You don't go to court unless you are willing to submit to a decision against you, and the Church cannot subject herself to any temporal court. Least of all to the court system that holds abortion legal, and, increasingly, gay "marriage" legal.
Let the government sue the Church then. An adverse ruling would at least serve to demonstrate that even courts are no longer willing to uphold the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Then they could pull out of the adoption business under protest. It’s better to stand up for the rights of the Church first rather than simply surrenduring and withdrawing from the field in the first instance, as the Church in Massachusetts has done. Of course there’s the additional problem that some of the Catholic Charities people and perhaps even archdiocesan people were not on board with the Church’s teaching, but that’s a separate issue.
Yes, it would have been better to simply defy the order and see what the state would do.
bump
In Alaska. Anywhere you want except courthouses and school grounds.
Perhaps then the Catholic church will take them on.
I believe this scenario is only a matter of time.
I have been saying for years, since this insanity first broke out, that if there is nothing special about marriage being between one man and one woman; what is so damned special about the number two?
If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing. And, that, is the ultimate purpose of this whole campaign. "Gay Marriage" is a Trojan Horse in the same way "Global Warming" is; it hides a bigger agenda within.
Two homosexuals are not a couple,unless they consist of one male and one female, they are a pair.
you and I agree on this
If those states want homosexual marriage then all kinds should be legal
The worst nightmare for the homosexual agenda is if and they have , other groups try to get their version of marriage legalised.
Way I look at it is there is a line ion the sand
on one side we have normal traditional marriage, on the other we have any what goes.
I take the side of normal marriage and believe that is it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.