"The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves." ~ Isaiah 3:9
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.
"The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves." ~ Isaiah 3:9
"Christians: The ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ will be used against you. This is not hype or exaggeration. It is a simple, legal truth."
I agree that the constitutionally indefensible federal “Respect for Marriage Act” will be used against Christians. That is, until Christian get themselves up to speed with the federal government's constitutionally limited powers and use their constitutionally enumerated protections to kill the act in the courts. (It's not so easy to get the corrupt desperate Democrats and RINOs who violated their oath to protect and defend the Constitution by making the law (imo) out of office.)
More specifically, since the word “marriage” doesn't appear in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment automatically makes defining and regulating marriage uniquely a state power issue.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
So the "Respect for Marriage Act" is ultimately dead in the water imo, again, only when Christians get up to speed with fed's constitutionally limited powers and citizen's constitutionally enumerated religious expression protections to kill it.
And when the states make anti-Christian marriage laws, Christians need to be prepared to pull the 14th Amendment card which prohibits the states from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections.
Excerpted from 14A:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
But while some Christian denominations seemingly wash their hands of government authority because it is "evil," 14A in this example, note that Acts 22:23-29 shows that the Holy Spirit led Apostle Paul to claim his Roman citizenship to get out of a flogging.
Also consider that 14A was successfully applied in a relatively recent UC Berkeley, California case to win a judgment against abridgment of free speech, although I wouldn't be surprised if California taxpayers ultimately paid the settlement.
UC Berkeley settles landmark free speech lawsuit, will pay $70,000 to conservative group (12.4.18)
Consider that Justice Reed had put it this way about 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus 14A personal protections.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." —Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.
By the text, it would seem that marriage between siblings is permitted, as would be marriage between parent and child.
It’s “any two individuals”.
Given Biden liked to screw his daughter, this makes sense.
Read and heed my tagline Christians.
They do understand the results.
The family is the basic building block for everything.
You remove it and people are unable to organize to resist the state.
Look at what the Inca did. When they conquered an area they gathered up all the people and scattered them through out their empire. You were placed where your neighbors were all from different areas. You had no language or customs in common so your only way of communicating was through the language of your conquerors. It prevented cohesion and without cohesion there can be no effective rebellion.
I think he was the man he was having a ‘relationship’ with. Kind of a man to hand relationship.
If not an overt seizure of property, the state will allow leftist terrorists to do their bidding with impunity.
Look up the book When the Wicked Seize a City, by Pastor Chuck McIlhenny. His conservative Presbyterian church fired a church organist who came out as openly "gay," and although a court affirmed the church's right to do so, they were literally attacked - firebombed - with the San Francisco city officials and law enforcement essentially looking the other way.
Biden paved the way for pedophiles by showering with his daughter. He is some kind of hero (to the left). To his daughter, not so much.
Hmmmm…..could be
I’m not convinced being racist is bad.
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.”Actually is right from the book, "After the Ball" on page 183. See more on this Strategies and psychological tactics here:
After The Ball How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred Of Gays In The 90s, is widely regarded as the handbook for the homosexual agenda, in which two homosexual Harvard-trained graduates, [60] Marshall Kirk (1957–2005), a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Hunter Madsen (pen name Erastes Pill), who was schooled in social marketing, advocated avoiding portraying homosexuals as aggressive challengers, but as "victims" instead, while making all those who opposed them to be "evil persecutors". As a means of the latter, they used jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, Gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."[61][62] Leftists also label Christians who support biblical marriage as "anti-gay," equating them with non-western Muslims who support stoning homosexuals.[63]
"Jamming" homo-hatred (disagreement with homosexual behaviors) was to be done by linking it to Nazi horror, advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."[64] " It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary... our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof."[65]
Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes,
There can be no doubt that Christianity represents the greatest obstacle to the normalization of homosexual behavior. It cannot be otherwise, because of the clear biblical teachings concerning the inherent sinfulness of homosexuality in all forms, and the normativity of heterosexual marriage. In order to counter this obstacle, Kirk and Madsen advised gays to "use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that 'justify' religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards." How can this be done? "This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings." [The latter of which attempts homosexuality and biblical interpretation examine and expose.][66]
Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"[67] “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”[68][69]
Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records: "It makes no difference that the ads are lies... because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones."[70]
The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the deleterious nature of the homosexual lifestyle. This includes sodomy being responsible for 81% of new HIV cases aged 13 and older among men - despite only representing approximately 4% of the male population - and 92% of new HIV among youth (2020), and (historically) a greatly increased incidence of other infectious diseases and premature death, and despite decades of attempting to subdue homoerotic practices into being "safe." [71]
“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”[72]
David Kupelian, author of The Marketing of Evil, describes Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, stating,
Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, worked with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing.[73]
Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the young age of 47.[74] The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.
Often cited as an early example of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.[75] In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.[76]
The charge of "homophobia" has been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in pushing the Homosexual Agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a "bigot" "persecuting" victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.[77]
More at source, by the grace of God. And regards homophobia, see The use of the slur "homophobic" by me. :
Acts of the Apostles 5:29. That’s our obligation.
From the secular point of view, this is a full-on assault on the religious freedom rights of the First Amendment. It needs to be fought and resisted. If the federal government no longer holds up its end of the deal to protect what it says it will protect, then the deal is off. I will stand by God and the Church. I will also stand by Jews, Muslims, and others whose sacred loyalties are attacked by tyrants.
Dude, the person was me. Everyone is bisexual.
Far higher? The number of heterosexual marriages where sex is occuring on a regular basis with others is maybe 15%. With queer boys who are “married” it is approaching 99%.
Exactly, and the churches should not recognize government marriages, they never should have allowed this incursion of government into what is a religious ceremony.
I expect to see a scene like unto Independence Day the movie in my lifetime. God Almighty is prone to using military foes to punish his people.
Biden might not be afeered of Russias threats of using Nukes, but he is stupid. When we place Patriot missile batteries in Ukraine and US troops join in, all bets are off.
You should turn yourself in, the statute of limitations may protect you, but you never know. They may go easy on you.
So a chronic masturbator defines everyone else’s sexuality? Got it.
2) They don't bother Muslims because they know that kind of aggressive action would only result in their death. Also, there's a mutual hatred for Christians, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
3) They're really only going to go after Christians.
Yea. Yes. Yes.
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.