Gay Marriage Is the Media's Vehicle, Destination Is to Destroy the Church

Big Journalism ^ | 3/26/2013 | John Nolte

[markomalley]

If anyone wants to argue that the same government currently forcing religious institutions to purchase the abortion pill through ObamaCare will not eventually use civil rights violations in order to attempt to force the Church to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies -- good luck with that.

But this would have been unthinkable five years ago.

It was just three months ago that the White House and media piled on a reverend for preaching the Bible's teachings on homosexuality. The result was his invitation to speak at Obama's inauguration being rescinded.

This would have been unthinkable five years ago.

With the election of Pope Francis, we have news anchors openly clamoring that the Church is out of step on same-sex marriage.

This would have been unthinkable five years ago.

Fifteen years ago, the same leftists and media assuring us today that same-sex marriage won't be imposed on the Church were telling us that civil unions (which I've always supported) would never lead to gay marriage.

[xsmommy]

Of course they won’t be successful in destroying Christ, but they certainly can corrupt the weak souls who aren’t grounded in their faith.

[svcw]

And that of course is the most painful part, those who will be lost for eternity.
My brother who preaches around the world says, his biggest frustration with westernized societies and where they put God.
His theory is that because we are so self sufficient that God becomes second place, instead first where He should be.
No he is not saying we shouldn’t be who we are, but he says when you go to places where people actually struggle for clean water, food, and shelter God is first place, they must depend on Him. And he adds because God is first, their ability to preform the wonders Christ promised that we could performed in His Name would blow you away.
My heart beaks for the lost.

[xsmommy]

Oh i can see that. It is very hard for us to “be still” and know that He is God, and allow him to do things for us. Very, very hard for professional, accomplished people, even people of great faith, to rely on Him.

[Cronos]

really?

[Cronos]

also one more — even societies that freely accepted gay partnerships like the ancient Greeks, they kept marriage reserved to man-woman

[Venturer]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/dec/21/20051221-121224-6972r/

Yep Really.

[ex-snook]

If religious leaders are taking a position on this, it is not getting much publicity.

[Salvation]

The Supreme Court - About to Play God Again?

[SuziQ]

If they can compel (or fine, or withdraw licensing) a bakery, florist, photographer, or event venue to serve a homosexual couple, do you think the next step won't be applying coercion to a religious organization which doesn't want to perform a ceremony?

All those are commercial concerns, and will run afoul of discrimination laws, because they are supposed to serve ALL of the public. If 'legal' marriage is removed from the purview of religion, then what happens in religious ceremonies is NOT a public action. If churches only confer a religious covenant ceremony on members of their faith traditions, then it is something that is covered under the 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion, and could be argued, Constitutionally, on that point.

So if part of the teaching of the Catholic faith is that ONLY one man and one woman can marry, then that is the only kind of ceremony that can be allowed in a Catholic Church. So a couple could receive the Sacrament of Matrimony without being 'legally' married. This might be a good thing for older folks who would like to be married, but could have a problem with how pensions or survivors' benefits are handled if one is re-married.

[rollo tomasi]

The end around is through tax breaks that hang over Churches’ heads. A Church that fails to adhere to State sanctioned homosexual “marriage” will eventually be compelled to conform through some type of coercion; that will be the next step. Heck, the dust is still not settled with abortion/artificial contraception coverage where the First Amendment could be usurped. In some States adoption laws have stifled the Church already. Satan never sleeps, especially with a living Constitution and corrupt Judges everywhere.

[Tax-chick]

then it is something that is covered under the 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion, and could be argued, Constitutionally, on that point

You seem to imagine our government cares what the Constitution says.

[SuziQ]

The gang in the White House now, and their Congressional allies, and media lapdogs certainly don’t care about the Constitution, but unfortunately, for them, there are some in Congress, and some out here, who still do.