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.
Lawfare continues to metastasize.
Polygamy will be here very soon. Those who oppose it will be in trouble.
The “Act” can be expected to do what the deniers of the religious freedom amendments intended the opposite of what those amendments would protect.
And if one of those is underage, that will be quickly codified as legal, you bigoted person you. Biden says it's okay, the King has spoken.
Anyone on here familiar with the Mormon Church? Do they allow gay weddings? If so, they have nothing to worry about.
Only Christian and Catholic churches will be targeted with this law and they’ll have to decide on losing their tax exempt status or closing. I wonder if the socialists running the Vatican are paying attention to that.
As for the black churches, they’ll be safe, as they’re on the same team as the Left. They’re heavily invested in making sure that people like Biden and Warnock get elected. An gay couple shows up in their places, they’ll be made to understand that they cannot use certain places of worship. They can only use the ones that provide service to WHITE, CONSERVATIVE, CHRISTIANS.
And, of course, no synagogues or mosque’s will be effected.
I predict that the first loud drumbeat will be for all tax exemption of churches uncooperative with the new official orthodoxy to be removed, or severely curtailed. They’ve been shouting for this for over a decade.
That would free non-black churches to participate in the political process.
I don’t think they would like how that turned out.
I’ve said for years - Christians will be forced back into the catacombs.
Polygamy will be next. If marriage is not limited to one man and one woman, why should marriage be limited to two people?
If I understand it correctly, this bill does just that. In California I believe there's no age limit for "marriage" as long as the parent consents. Unfortunately our diversity-is-our-strength policy has led to an influx of many people in California for which underage marriage is the norm (as is underage sex, being as 12 is the legal limit in parts of Mexico and south of there, likewise with the the death-to-America! cult it's righteous to marry her as long as she's old enough to menstruate). What this bill does is say it's illegal for one state to not honor a "marriage" done legally in another state. So a pedo-man can now bring his child-bride to your state and if you try to protect her by alerting the child protective services in your state, this federal "law" says your state can't protect her.
i thought so too
but lately it seems
that pedophilia has cut in line
“And, of course, no synagogues or mosque’s will be affected.”
I wouldn’t assume that. One side has to win. But keep in mind that LGBT is based on what a person says, not what they are (unlike race). I am Bisexual. I have been having sexual relations with the same man since I found a Playboy magazine when I was 15.
Or this will hand SCOTUS the opportunity to reverse the “gay marriage” ruling and leave it up to the states.
An unconstitutional law can be struck down.
This was a power not delegated by the states so they keep that right.
What they meant for evil, God can use for good.
let the Christian persecutions begin
Ha! Gays are very highly promiscuous even when they are in a 'committed' relationship. What twaddle!
i agree
it may put obergefell in play
One side has to win....
One side is winning.
Can you point out or post a link where a Jewish or Muslim business owner is/has been sued over making a wedding cake, taking pictures or doing graphic design?
Certainly not the muslim. Why? Because they will get violent in the name of Allah and that will be it for the gay folks, in question.
Sorry, Bidumb, but "loyalty" isn't any part of the definition of marriage any more than any other definitional requirements are any longer valid. In fact, faggots are in-our-face "proud" of their "open marriage" arrangements, at far higher rates than real marriages. Nothing "loyal" about that.
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.