Posted on 03/02/2014 5:22:19 AM PST by reaganaut1
IT now seems certain that before too many years elapse, the Supreme Court will be forced to acknowledge the logic of its own jurisprudence on same-sex marriage and redefine marriage to include gay couples in all 50 states.
Once this happens, the national debate essentially will be finished, but the country will remain divided, with a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage.
So what then? One possibility is that this division will recede into the cultural background, with marriage joining the long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it.
In this scenario, religious conservatives would essentially be left to promote their view of wedlock within their own institutions, as a kind of dissenting subculture emphasizing gender differences and procreation, while the wider culture declares that love and commitment are enough to make a marriage. And where conflicts arise in a case where, say, a Mormon caterer or a Catholic photographer objected to working at a same-sex wedding gay rights supporters would heed the advice of gay marriages intellectual progenitor, Andrew Sullivan, and let the dissenters opt out in the name of their freedom and ours.
But theres another possibility, in which the oft-invoked analogy between opposition to gay marriage and support for segregation in the 1960s South is pushed to its logical public-policy conclusion. In this scenario, the unwilling photographer or caterer would be treated like the proprietor of a segregated lunch counter, and face fines or lose his business which is the intent of recent legal actions against a wedding photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington State, and a baker in Colorado.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“We need to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work ourselves.”
Well, then, what should we do?
Yes, and the deepest reality is God! Your “realism” is shallowism.
Well, certainly not call on God because that’s way too shallow! /DEEP SARC
I heard it preached this way: Congress can pass a law declaring that 2 + 2 = 5. The president can sign it into law. People can try to follow the law, and a majority can agree with it. It’s still wrong and utter nonsense.
Then you keep wishing He’ll magically solve this problem for us.
I prefer to do the hard work He put for us on Earth.
Christian America did not reluctantly "acquiesce" in any of these things; they actively embraced-- nay celebrated-- them.
Historical trivia question: who was the first governor to sign a no-fault divorce law? Answer: Ronald Reagan (not coincidentally, the only divorced President we ever had).
You will need to embrace Him in all His supernatural reality, or all your “hard work” will be totally in vain if not starkly counterproductive. You’ll only chase your tail.
They should be scared. There are one billion Muslims in the world and they have the Borg mentality. If they started a homo jihad our issues would be solved in no time.
“certainly not call on God because thats way too shallow”
Prayer is a given, but surely you’re not suggesting that we do nothing else.
You only surrender to somebody you trust to treat you honorably after you surrender. These people aren’t even treating us honorably during the war.
That seems to be exactly what you WISH I was saying.
Because you don’t want God to bend your ideas of a political plan.
In fact, you would especially detest God if He said get off that campaign stump and get on the evangelism stump!
That’s absurd; I don’t “detest God” now and the very suggestion is offensive.
If insults are all you have to offer, I’ll thank you to leave me out of 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.