Posted on 05/05/2015 4:06:54 PM PDT by Kaslin
During a reception hosted by the group "Freedom to Marry," White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett praised President Obama for his huge part in accelerating the gay marriage cause heard by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) last week. "The arc of the moral universe," said Jarrett, "bent a little faster than even we thought it would." The "moral arc" regarding gay marriage cannot be bent without harmful consequence, but you'd never know that listening to Ms. Jarrett.
Indeed. The arc is bent -- by intensely motivated activists pulling on it with all their might, demanding SCOTUS re-define the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. What's next? When anger motivates, enough is never enough.
The bigger danger, though, is the resulting potential loss of freedom, something one of our Canadian neighbors, William Whatcott, fully understands. Speaking up about his Christian views regarding homosexuality and abortion by way of graphically honest pamphlets led to six arrests in Saskatchewan, 20 in Ontario, a six-month jail stint for protesting too close to an abortion clinic in Toronto and a $17,500 fine from the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal for distributing material deemed "hateful."
On February 28, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Whatcott. Justice Marshall Rothstein wrote Canadians' right to freedoms of speech and religion are unlimited except when it is conveyed via "hate speech." Maybe a bit contradictory, given the words "unlimited" and "except" are mutually exclusive and the definition of hate speech is dependent upon those in power.
The court considered various cases including one suggesting that certain practices cannot be separated from a person's identity, therefore "condemnation of the practice is a condemnation of the person." Additionally, Justice Rothstein defined hate speech as targeting a particular group as "a menace that could threaten the safety and wellbeing of others, makes references to respected sources (in this case the Bible) to lend credibility to negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred."
Jesus Christ himself could've been charged with hate speech crimes in Canada having defined marriage as between a man and woman, called people hypocrites, serpents, sinners and vipers while referencing scripture.
And we're not far off from that now in the U.S. as we await the SCOTUS decision this June. Clearly, free speech is not on the minds of intolerant activists who recently castigated two gay hotel proprietors, Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass, who did the unthinkable by hosting a quaint reception for presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz in April to discuss foreign policy. Activists threatened a boycott to punish the two for sharing snacks and conversation with what they perceive as the enemy. Given the unmitigated backlash, the two relented. And repented, apologizing on Facebook for "hurting the gay community" although Mr. Reisner said they "spent most of the time talking about national security issues...regarding the defense of Israel to ISIS and Iran." Oh, the irony, that a discussion mostly about how a potential President Cruz's foreign policy might protect Americans from the real enemy, rather than an illogically perceived one.
One thing is for sure - even if SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage, the real "moral arc" remains constant. What is deemed legal is not necessarily right in the eyes of the One who created the laws of the universe. Justice Kennedy rightly questioned the appropriateness of the Court to abandon the definition of marriage. He said marriage "has been with us for millennia" making it "very difficult for the court to say, 'Oh well, we know better.'" We do know better, but the wide-eyed optimist I no longer am can only hope that those in power protect what is not really theirs to unravel. Anyhow, research shows that traditionally married people live longer, are healthier, happier, and have more satisfying sex. I guess God knew what he was doing when he created Adam and Eve.
What do you mean "if"?
Here are the instructions on how to hold American fascist judges accountable for their crimes:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/Alstoetter.htm
Paging ValJar’s father. Your presence is required for a Stoning/Honor Killing at dawn.
If they do, you would not want to be in their shoes.
I agree!
The supreme court can repeal the law of gravity, but people can still fall down the stairs. Likewise, they can redefine marriage, but it is not possible for two men nor two women to marry.
Being a good Muslim, Valerie of course means "the moral universe" as is defined by Islamic teachings.
Which, of course, do not include allowing homosexuals to live.
So, for all the gays and lesbians listening in, why, exactly, do you think Valerie is so happy about the progress of what you call "gay rights"?
One way or the other, you'll be tested on your answer.
Pitchforks, torches, and shovels?
Constitutional Amendment? Would take years.
What would this slumlord-racist know about morals, other than rotten ones?
There won’t be any ‘what if’ about it...They are now spending their time trying to figure out how to justify their decision to the American people...
If the Supremes rule in favor of gay “marriage”, that will mean the same thing as their ruling in favor of abortion. States will have to tolerate it, but it will be no more moral than it is now. Such a ruling will also stop all debate cold, and no progress toward a real solution will be made ever again. I suspect the few sensible liberals in the world don’t want that. Sadly, none of the Court liberals have even a shred of common sense.
This is Caesar’s tribunal, composed of Caesar’s minions, who will no doubt do Caesar’s bidding. Take away the pomp, the circumstance, and the theatrics and you have 9 political hacks in black muumuus. They don’t represent me, and do not have anything even resembling moral authority.
If it goes through, some conservative churches will no longer perform any wedding ceremonies in the building. They will perform a “blessing” of REAL marriages (one man, one woman) in the church after the wedding.
“I’m in favor of dropping that word as a synonym for ‘judge’.”
I agree. How ‘bout Leper? As in Chief Leper Roberts, and associate Leper Keenedy. Or would that be a grave insult to fine and upstanding lepers?
That makes perfect sense.
There are churches that have lost their BUILDINGS due to disagreements with certain denominational hierarchies over the “gay” “marriage” thing already.
I know of one that left her former denomination lost its building..and just recently bought a “replacement”.
No “gay “marriages” there!!
Well said.
I know there is a contingent of well-known pastors who have already signed a petition and letter, stating that regardless of the outcome of their decision, their allegiance is to God’s Word. If the SCOTUS removes traditional marriage, they will NOT perform same-sex marriages under any circumstances, as to do so would be blasphemous and against God’s laws. I would hope that MANY others would join them, if push comes to shove.
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.