Posted on 06/30/2013 7:32:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Today's talk of tolerance and acceptance of gay marriage will soon give way to intolerance and rejection of those who hold a traditional view of marriage.
The next offensive in this culture war will involve wielding government to force individuals to accept the new definition of marriage, falsely invoking analogies to civil rights.
As a prototype, consider the assault on the liberty of Elaine Huguenin, the wedding photographer in New Mexico. In 2006, a couple asked her to photograph their wedding. When she learned the couple were lesbians, she declined, explaining that pursuant to her faith, she only photographed man-woman weddings.
The couple got a different photographer, but they sued Huguenin. In New Mexico, there is no gay marriage. In a recent poll, most New Mexicans said they oppose gay marriage. But the state outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Huguenin had broken the law, and ordered her to pay $7,000. Huguenin, with the aide of the pro-bono civil liberties law firm Alliance Defense Fund, has sued and the case is now before state Supreme Court.
Try to live your own life according to traditional values, and the state will come after you, and compel you live according to its values.
Florist Barronelle Stutzman owns Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Wash. A gay man, who was a long-time customer of Arlene's, asked Stutzman to arrange flowers for his wedding. She declined, citing her belief that marriage is a union between a man and woman. Now Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson is coming after Stutzman, saying, in effect, she must participate in this gay wedding.
How does Ferguson justify using the power of the state to impose his morality? "If Ms. Stutzman sells flowers to heterosexual couples," the Seattle Post-Intelligencer quotes Ferguson saying, "she must sell them to same-sex couples."
But obviously Stutzman did sell flowers to same-sex couples, happily - that's why this particular client was a long-time customer. What she refuses to do is participate in a ceremony that the state calls marriage, but which she doesn't consider to be marriage.
This is why the civil rights analogy doesn't work. Hugeinin's case and the Stutzman's case aren't about small businesswomen refusing to serve gay people. They are about businesswomen refusing to endorse the novel definition of marriage.
Now a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has asserted that the only reason to object to gay marriage is to "demean" gay people, expect this offensive in the culture war to escalate.
President Obama promised that he won't try to force churches to administer gay weddings. That's very kind of him. But Obama's contraception mandate has shown us how narrowly he views religious liberty.
Maybe Obama or his successor won't use an executive order to rewrite the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, but government will go after churches all the same. The Cardinal O'Boyle Hall that your parish occasionally rents to outside groups? Better allow gay wedding receptions there or face the wrath of the state.
You're allowed to be religious, of course, but only on the Sabbath. If you dare step into the world of commerce or public service, the government will impose its morality on you.
You see it in Obama's rhetoric: he talks of "freedom of worship" rather than freedom of religion. It's a push to bring to heel all rivals of government. Liberal writer Kevin Drum made it pretty explicit during the contraception mandate debate:
"I'm tired of religious groups operating secular enterprises (hospitals, schools)," he wrote, "hiring people of multiple faiths, serving the general public, taking taxpayer dollars -- and then claiming that deeply held religious beliefs should exempt them from public policy."
The thrust: religious groups should only do religion--they shouldn't feed the poor, clothe the naked, educate the young.
And individuals who adhere to religions? Leave your faith at the church door. The Obama administration has argued in the contraception mandate cases that we lose our freedom of conscience the second we enter into commerce with other people.
The Left has long been the aggressor in the culture war. The crushing power of government has long been their weapon.
Many politically involved writers and advocates concerned with liberty and equality fought to open marriage to gay couples. Now that they've won, here's hoping that those who care about liberty will defend the liberty of cultural conservatives to live their lives according to their faith.
-- Timothy P. Carney is The Washington Examiner's senior political columnist
Muslims are exempted - of course
ping
Homosexual marriage. The whole idea is ridiculous on its face. Within 5-10 years this nonsense will be reversed...if there is an American left to stop it by then.
Reject the language. Reject the very premise, “gay marriage”-— doesn’t exist. Marriage is defined as man and woman. What is the candy a$$ libbie lightweights definition of marriage? 3 gals/2 guys, father/daughter, etc, etc..???? I’ve yet to hear an answer in person. Lapdog lemming cowards who accept everything from a kool-aid propaganda ministry. Then we hear, despite biology of reproductive organs, that “Chaz” Bono is now a man. Lies to be rejected at their face with no compromise.
We all know where this is going. The sodomite scum want affirmation for a perverse guilt ridden lifestyle and will attempt like in Canada and England to criminalize all speech against the queers. So more tyranny and we’re back to guns again. Which is why ammo is still wiped out.
Obama said this is not a Christian nation. He intends to make that so. Christians must fight it.
What makes you say that?
If I were a member of the American Left, I’d be laughing and crapping on everyone too.
No one anywhere is stopping them.
Ironically, in so doing the Commission broke the law:
Art I, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
This will be the last straw.
Ping.
RE: This will be the last straw.
And then what?
I’ll figure that out when I get there.
Last week’s abominable SC decision was as good as an ENDA being passed, as the upshot of Kennedy’s statements will be used as the “marital status” part of federal non-discrimination laws nationwide. And when they are hired, they will further reference this court decision to force employers nationwide to provide the same insurance coverage and other employer provided services to their “spouses” even when the state forbids such unions be recognized for such purposes.
My best friend’s husband is the pastor of a fundamental Baptist church in California. They’re terrified that he’ll be asked to perform a same-sex marriage. There is no way he’d agree to it, and could be taken to court. He would change careers before doing that ceremony.
Because frankly there may be no United States by then. And the new owners are liable to not be so godamned tolerant...at least not for anyone but their fellow goat and butt-humpers.
That's because good, law-abiding, conservative Americans play by the rules. Leftists do not. They have NO system of morality, so their desired ends justifies everything they do, no matter how horrific and vile.
What do you expect us to do? Forge voter ballots more than the Left to win elections? Ignore the Constitution to push our agenda? We'd essentially become THEM.
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.
