Posted on 12/16/2022 8:02:14 AM PST by SeekAndFind
This is not hype or exaggeration. It is a simple, legal truth.
With the signing of the “Respect for Marriage Act” into law, if you do not accept or affirm same-sex “marriage,” you are now in the same category as a racist. And you can be assured that this will be used as a weapon against you in the days to come.
How can I make such statements?
Let me remind you of the exact language of the bill, beginning with the opening words: “This act provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.”
I have already discussed the reasons why this language was used since, in reality, interracial marriages were no more under potential legal threat in America than apple pie or baseball.
In this article, I want to point out how the language is being used to target and demonize those of us who affirm and welcome interracial marriage, which contains the fundamental elements of marriage (a man and a woman) but rejects the validity of same-sex “marriage.”
A headline on the CNBC website announced, “Biden signs bill to protect same-sex and interracial marriages,” one among countless, similar headlines. These two categories, quite disparate and fundamentally unrelated, are now joined together as one. Who but a racist or a bigot would have a problem with either?
As underscored by President Biden in his remarks at the signing of the bill,
“For most of our nation’s history, we denied interracial couples and same-sex couples from these protections. We failed. We failed to treat them with equal dignity and respect.
And now, the law requires that interracial marriages and same-sex marriage must be recognized as legal in every state in the nation.”
So, all of you who are convinced by Scripture or natural law or common sense that marriage is the union of a man and a woman are no better than a racist who opposes interracial marriage. In fact, under the law, you are now equal to a racist.
Of course, demonizing those who cannot affirm LGBT activism has been a proven, long-practiced gay activist strategy, spelled out explicitly in the late 1980s.
To quote directly from a well-known 1987 document, a sub-heading reads: "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
Specifically,
“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. . . . A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower its guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization.”
Or, from a watershed 1989 book, written by the same authors: “Jam homo-hatred by linking it to Nazi horror,” urge the authors. They also suggested associating all who oppose homosexuality with images like “Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,” “hysterical backwoods preachers,” “menacing punks,” and a “tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.”
That’s why I devoted a whole chapter in A Queer Thing Happened to America to the subject of, “Jewish Hitlers, Christian Jihadists, and the Magical Effects of Pushing the ‘Hate’ Button.”
Now, thanks to Congress and the President, our federal law has taken this one step further. Dare to differ with same-sex “marriage” as an individual or a business (outside the protection of a religious organization), and you will be treated like a racist who refuses to affirm interracial marriage.
To repeat: this is now federal law.
As to President Biden’s remarks, he also said this: “Marriage — I mean this with all my heart — marriage is a simple proposition: Who do you love, and will you be loyal with that person you love? It’s not more complicated than that.”
May I ask, Mr. President, if this applies to two gay, adult brothers who are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives?
Is it that simple?
And on what basis, given your “simple proposition,” can marriage be limited to two people who love each other? Why not more than two?
If you say, “But marriage is the union of two people,” my response is simple.
Marriage only requires two people because it requires a man and a woman. Otherwise, there’s nothing magic about the number two. Put another way: Why isn’t it bigoted and hateful to reject consensual polygamous relationships?
I could also mention the fact that the Respect for Marriage Act is part of a larger societal agenda, which is why President Biden invited a notorious drag queen to the signing.
It’s also why he said this:
“We need to challenge the hundreds of callous and cynical laws introduced in the states targeting transgender children, terrifying families and criminalizing doctors who give children the care they need. And we have to protect these children so they know they are loved and that we will stand up for them and so they can seek for themselves.”
Here, he was speaking about those who stand against the medically sponsored chemical castration or genital mutilation of children who identify as transgender.
But let me simplify things here. The President put it all together in one sentence, making it clearer than I could in a whole article. These are the words of the President of the United States of America on December 13, 2022, at the signing of the bill: “Folks, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia — they’re all connected.”
Enough said.
Dr. Michael Brown(www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Revival Or We Die: A Great Awakening Is Our Only Hope.
I spit of the “Respect for Marriage Act”.
Come Get me, FedGov punks!
Followed closely by incest.
I think Christian churches need to get out of the legal marriage business. Offer a religious marriage which is the only thing that matters to most of us. If you want a legal marriage as well go to a judge and do it separately.
I’d say Christians - and other people who believe in morality in general - have to assume part of the blame for things like this.
Conservatives & other morality-holders sat back and let the amoral left take control of American institutions - e.g. schools, businesses, churches, etc. simply by “not wanting to get involved” or having more important things to do.
The sad part is, at one time, conservatives and other traditional morality believers would be in charge of such things as school boards, library boards and other local level gigs. Republicans used to be the most reliable “come hail, sleet or snow” voting bloc. Now, spicy buffalo wings and a trucker reality show marathon can vie for attention on election night.
A problem such as this would have been easier handled back when - it’s as Barney Fife said, “Nip it in the bud!”. But people who cared either stopped caring or had no idea on how to maintain the control that they instead surrendered.
That’s because they didn’t target those businesses. That will come. All you have to do is sue them.
Note that the bolshevists would need to tax the income of the religious facilities (church, synagogue, etc) and to eliminate the charitable tax deductions for giving to the churches (and synagogues, etc.). That would p.o. lots of folks!
Everyone knows this, especially the radical left. And they openly admit it.
"There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases, the sexual liberty should win I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."
-- Chai Feldblum, Obama's nominee to the EEOC
Also note that the bolshevists are tin-eared enough to do this with little or no understanding of the results.
Churches should develop cell structures and be discipling all members with how to continue to worship, evangelize and serve in such a state. All mature men should be trained to lead small groups in prayer, worship and Bible reading and providing basic sermons at whatever level they are capable of. Look to the Church in China and other closed countries for guidance in how to function and ultimately thrive. They, not the American church, are spiritually mature and battle-tested.
That’s because they didn’t target those businesses....you prove your own point, moron. Operative term....TARGET. They aren’t going to target a muslim bakery, because they know that the threat of violence is legitimate.
Send two gay guys into a muslim bakery, get denied, sue them. Let me know how that works out.
And if you’ve been in a relationship with the same man, since you were 15, except for a few states where the age of consent is lower than it should be, that man engaged in Statutory Rape.
“.you prove your own point, moron.”
You mad, Skippy?
What makes you think that, as if equal application of the law is still a thing?
The left has been wanting to have it both ways for decades. They decry churches and religious non-profit ministries for not paying taxes, and so shouldn't have any voice in government policy. But then they decry private businesses who DO pay taxes but want to express their views in their business practices based on their beliefs. And if The businesses do express their religious beliefs, they're lectured that "you're not a church, you're a business!"
So, which is it?
Not even a little bit.
FR and some of the clowns on it, you being one of them, do not get me mad. Not a bit.
This site doesn’t need to be an echo chamber for all things Conservative. I like the debate. Sometimes even learn something and have no problem acknowledging when I’m wrong. But, I also find if funny when folks like you “out” themselves.
Agree!!!
Please see my “about” page
Because it seems fairly tame compared to what has already been demanded and accepted.
And, of course, no synagogues or mosque’s will be effected.
Wouldn't put it past the Reform Jews (who allow sodomite "marriage") to go after the Orthodox.
That could happen, but will they have “Standing”.
Well, this would define Jesus Christ as a “racist,” so bring it on -— I follow Christ, who was crucified, therefore His followers should expect no less.
In theory, we have equal application of the law. But, yes, we do not. This is largely a result of the left's two-facedness - do as I say, not as I do.
Get a three year old or a hundred and three year old to say "I do" and you have 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.