The coming constitutional clash between traditional religion and homocentric secularism

Gay marriage wedding cake photo by Giovanni Dall'Orto, 26-1-2008.Matt Lewis nails the core issue when it comes to the LGBT crowd’s demands that shopkeepers engage in acts contrary to their religious conscience:

But let’s be honest about something else. This is really a surrogate battle. A much bigger one is coming.


The reason conservative Christians are fighting this fight today is because it’s a firewall. The real danger, of course, is that Christian pastors and preachers will eventually be coerced into performing same-sex marriages. (Note: It is entirely possible for someone to believe gay marriage is fine, and to still oppose forcing people who hold strong religious convictions to participate — but I suspect that is where we are heading.)

Think of it this way. If you were a congregant in a church, wouldn’t you expect the pastor to marry you? Why should you be treated different?

Any pastor — if he or she wants to maintain the church’s tax status, that is — had better grapple with this now.

Whether the analogy is fair, or not, refusing to officiate a gay wedding can just as easily be called “denying service.” And it will predictably also be compared to the bad old days of Jim Crow — where racist Christians opposed interracial marriage (until the courts struck down state laws prohibiting biracial marriage).

Gay rights and religious liberty are on a collision course.

I’m too lazy to go through my archives now, but long-time readers will know that I’ve been saying this for years.  In fact, just three years ago, I made precisely this argument using lawyer logic and the example of England:

I have said all along that the main problem with the gay marriage debate is that, by creating an entirely new bottom line (gay marriage) we’re going to see two bottom lines crash into each other.  You see, traditional male/female marriage meshed nicely with the vast majority of traditional religious norms.  Gay marriage, however, does not mesh with traditional religion.  While Progressive churches and synagogues have opened their doors to gay marriages, more traditional ones, especially the Orthodox Jewish faith and the Catholic Church, have not done so.

When I’ve raised this concern to people, they scoffed.  One liberal told me that, even though abortions are legal, the government has never gone toe-to-toe with the Catholic Church.  He looked a bit taken aback, and had no response, when I pointed out that the Catholic Church doesn’t provide, or withhold, abortions; it simply speaks against them doctrinally.  The Church does, however, marry people, and that leaves open the possibility that a gay couple will sue the church for refusing to perform a marriage service.

Others, while acknowledging that my point has a certain intellectual validity, say that it will never happen.  I’m not so sure, especially after reading a story out of England involving a Pentecostal couple who were told that, as long as their religion held that homosexuality is not acceptable behavior, they could not foster needy children:

A Christian couple morally opposed to homosexuality today lost a High Court battle over the right to become foster carers.

Eunice and Owen Johns, aged 62 and 65, from Oakwood, Derby, went to court after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a ‘homosexual lifestyle’ was acceptable.

The Pentecostal Christian couple had applied to Derby City Council to be respite carers but withdrew their application believing it was ‘doomed to failure’ because of the social worker’s attitude to their religious beliefs.

The couple deny that they are homophobic and said they would love any child they were given. However, what they were ‘not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing’.

What’s relevant to this post is that the judges explicitly held that homosexual rights trump religious rights:

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation ‘should take precedence’ over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

Admittedly, Britain does not have a First Amendment.  However, as I noted above, First Amendment or not, our government bars, and (when Mormons are involved) actively prosecutes, polygamy.  It does so despite the fact that polygamy was official doctrine for the Mormons and is official doctrine for the Muslims.  Likewise, although Voodoo is recognized as a religion, we don’t let practitioners engage in animal sacrifice.  In other words, First Amendment or not, the government will interfere in religious doctrine if it runs completely afoul of a bottom-line American value.

If gay marriage is deemed Constitutional, we suddenly have two conflicting bottom-line values — gay marriage and religious freedom.  I’m not predicting how this will turn out.  I’m just saying that, if I was the Catholic Church or an Orthodox synagogue, I’d start having my lawyers look at this one now.

I’m not usually a great strategist or long-term thinker, but it was easy to see this one coming. It’s not about homophobia. It’s about a clash between faiths: traditional religion versus homocentric secularism.  The traditionalists have people who will willingly martyr themselves for their faith, while the secularists have people who will cheerfully force martyrdom on others.  It remains to be seen (a) which is the more powerful impulse and (b) which resonates more strongly with Americans.  Sadly, if I had to bet money on this today, I’d put my money on the secularists, who long ago successfully co-opted America’s cultural institutions:  the news media, the entertainment world, all public primary schools, all colleges and universities, reform Jews, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • terrapin

    There is a huge difference between a bakery and a church. The latter has First Amendment protection, due to freedom of religion. The first cannot discriminate against people because it is a public accommodation. 
    Your screed would have some legitimacy if you could point to one example of government forcing a church to perform a rite or sacrament. Of course, that has never happened, so you cannot do so.
    Instead, you cite examples of acts barred by law, which are barred for reasons having nothing to do with religion. The US did not ban polygamy because Mormons practice it.  Same with animal sacrifice.
    Also, as too often is the case with marriage equality opponents, you falsely equate civil marriage with religious marriage. You do this to stoke fear, in order to try to find a reason to oppose equality, and, by doing so, you again remind the discerning reader that there is no legitimate reason to deny equality. Thank you for that.

    • Ymarsakar

      As a Leftist, what kind of orders would T obey?
      It thinks we’ll believe it when it says it won’t obey the Left’s authority.
      Who is T, a tool of the Left, to say what humans are to do? It has to be a human to understand us.

      • terrapin

        Your attempt to dehumanize me is not well taken, and will not work. You are apparently unable to use facts or logic, so you instead use a tool long used by fascists to convince the masses that it is acceptable to trample a group’s rights, or even to kill them.  
        Nice try though.

    • shirleyelizabeth

      A bakery is not a public accommodation. It is a personal business. A road is a public accommodation. The postal service is a public accommodation.

  • Ymarsakar

    Society has traditionally restrained killing impulses, by unifying people’s differences into a single tribe or identity. The Left, by splitting people apart into clans and tribes, makes us easier to conquer and enslave.
    However, as a side effect that means certain people’s natural killing power becomes unrestrained, in the same fashion that homosexuals are unrestrained now when they come out of the closet.
    There is a reason why society goes to such lengths to oppress and keep certain things out of sight and in the closet. The human race will soon understand what that really means.

  • raymondjelli

    You are so wrong. We are talking about somebody forcibly being pushed into servicing a rite!!! I have homosexual customers, suppliers, network group associates but I would never compromise myself in the way they are forcing these small business to. These are minor issues which means this is a test case. I doubt the endgame is to force religion into anything. What they want to do is squeeze religion out of everything!!!!!
    The progressive cause was found to be false. It was supposed by the 21st century that ignorant religion would be done. Now the major issues in the world are religious. Why are leftists so tolerant of Islam??? Because if they weren’t their real numbers in the actual world would be revealed as pitifully small. So instead they’ve grafted Islam to the cause. Clever that.
    Out of control secularism is a terrible, deadly thing.

  • lee

    This is one of the reasons I think that the civil marriage as it is should be revised into a sort of incorporation process. (Sort of, but a little short of it.) Instead of going to City Hall, or the County Clerk, or in the case of my husband and myself in our odd county of residence, the Coroner’s Office, and filling out a “license,” I have proposed that couples fill out a LOT more paperwork. Essentially, turn the process of “legal/civil marriage” into a process similar to what some gay couple started doing during the height of the AIDS epidemic. Or, more simply, fill out paperwork that creates a sort of legal partnership, with the similar sort of stuff that goes into that sort of paperwork: how the partnership is structured, who owns what percentage, manner by which the partnership will be dissolved, etc.
    Then, if couples want a priest, rabbi, pastor or wiccan priestess to do whatever is appropriate to make is a marriage in your faith, then do it. Fine. Or don’t.  Or if you just want to have the religious imprimatur on your union, then skip the ream of bureaucratic paperwork and call it day–but realize that as a couple, you will be missing out on certain legal aspects–like if a spouse dies intestate, you don’t automatically inherit. Or if the spouse is incapacitated, you are not the automatic power of whatever. Because there is no LEGAL structure to your union.
    Another reason I think this is the way to go is that because now that we have started down the slippery slope of gay marriage, you KNOW the next thing will be polygamous marriage. Not because the liberal nut jobs like the Mormons of yore, but because of both their fondness for moral relativism, and Moslems. And if someone wants multiple wives, this is one way to protect the ones that get figuratively screwed in the deal. And also any pink-cheeked naive roped into the marriage. (Like imams aren’t already pulling a Warren Jeffs out there in the good ol’ US already.) It is also a way to protect against the fraudster polygamist.
    We’re already screwed in this country. 

  • lee

    Another thought crosses my mind regarding the Progressive hate of religion:
    I hear OVER AND OVER AND OVER from my liberal friends that religions shouldn’t get tax exempt status because of X, Y and/or Z. People–tax exempt status doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it means. In California, 501(c)(3)–which include RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS–still pay sales taxes on purchases, still pay property tax, and still pay some other state taxes. Some other states, they may pay NO state taxes at all (sales taxes on purchases, property taxes, etc.) To the Feds, they all pay employment taxes, and some other Federal taxes. And if they make money from “unrelated business income,” they will pay that. It means they are “non-profits” and they do not distribute surplus income as profits or dividends to anyone, and use it to preserve or expand the organization.  Which basically means, they aren’t making any money to be taxed anyhow! 
    So, to those people who grumble about churches not paying taxes, I say, “Get over it!”

  • lee

    Another thought about religion and the left:
    In our country, the best hospitals were originally established by/as religious organizations (they were better for DECADES than the county/city ones, and even the training ones); religious organizations were the ones who established and ran orphanages, and helped get children adopted; before government assistance programs, it was religious organizations that ran soup kitchens and other charitable help organization. And while it wasn’t alway peachy perfect keen, it was often times the only gig in town, and when there was a public one, the religious one was usually better.  They often still do a fantastic job–Jewish Family Services, Catholic Family Services and Lutheran Family Services are generally very well run. Adventist Health International is pretty good. There are a host of others.
    The Left DESPISES the efficacy of religious organizations when it comes to charitable work, AND they REALLY want the government to take it all over. 
    The best way to achieve that is to destroy the ability of religious organization to do charitable work.

  • Charles Martel

    The Establishment attack on the churches, the Catholic Church in particular, will use whatever wedge issue is at hand. So-called same-sex marriage is probably the ideal, because in the name of some nebulous “equality” (viz Terrapin) the government can assume the pose of superior moral agency.
    But I do think Terrapin is right to say that the Establishment will not go so far as to demand or sue for forcible marriage of homosexual couples by an orthodox church. Even our homespun American fascists know there are lines they cannot yet cross. So the fight will be waged at the boundaries, such as demanding that same-sex couples be given the right to adopt through Catholic adoption agencies, or that employees’ abortifacients be paid for by Catholic hospitals—instances that have already transpired.
    The result, of course, will be the eventual closing down of Catholic civil institutions. And that is the goal of the left, to divest society of any civil institutions that stand between the state and its subjects: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

  • Matt_SE

    Everything comes down to “consent of the governed,” and barring that, “civil disobedience.”
    The examples of Ukraine and Venezuela bear that out, I believe. The tyrants will continue to push until they are pushed back on in a very public, large-scale way:
    Public, so that it becomes a referendum on the government itself.
    Large-scale so that it cannot be ignored.
    Leftists won’t willingly give up their power, we’re going to have to take it from them. Sounds like fun.

  • Matt_SE

    I was about to make a logical case against your position, but who are we kidding? You wouldn’t accept such an argument even if it were conclusive.
    So instead of telling you how things should be, I’m going to tell you how things are going to be: We conservatives are tired of being pushed around by fascist, preening busybodies like you and we will not comply. If push comes to shove, you’ll find out just how hard we can push back.
    I’m not sure the people will be so enchanted when they see the level of coercion necessary to make your utopian dreams come true. 

    • Matt_SE

      Crap…that post was meant for terrapin.

    • terrapin

      I suspect that your failure to provide a logical response has more to do with the fact that there is none.  I respond well to logic.. Try me.
      I put no stock in your threat of how things will be. What exactly is is that you will not comply with? The law? Good luck with that. Logic? Obviously…

      • Ymarsakar

        How’s the de humanization of the competition religious orders to the Left going, T. You think you’ll be immune at the end of it all?

  • Michael Adams

    It was Judge Learned Hand who wrote, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” Since the government is forbidden to regulate religious institutions, it is forbidden to tax them. 
    About forty years ago, the University of Texas YMCA/YWCA was host to , among other things, the Student Mobilization Committee to End the War in Viet Nam.  The Austin City Council, then a conservative crowd, unlike our Politburo of today, arranged to end their tax exemption.  The Y lost its exemption and then its ability to operate, which depended on, of course, money. Their brand-new building was sold for taxes, to  the Church of Scientology.  They were taxed/regulated out of existence.This illustrates why churches are not taxable.

    • lee

      Texas is one of the states where “tax exempt” means more. 501(c)(3) organizations don’t pay sales tax or property tax, and probably not much other state or local taxes. Losing tax exempt status there would do this. Especially if you didn’t pay property taxes before and then have to. In  CA, they do pay property taxes.

  • Earl

    BW writes:  “…we suddenly have two conflicting bottom-line values — gay marriage and religious freedom.  I’m not predicting how this will turn out.”
    We already know what the State has in mind… marriage tops religious freedom.  The freedom of citizens NOT to take part in (what to them is) a religious ceremony of which their religion disapproves, and has disapproved for 2,000 years. 
    This is NOT a matter of “public accommodation”….any gay person can walk into the bakery and ask for a cake – even a wedding cake – from the display cabinet.  But working with a couple on a special-order wedding cake makes the bakers PART OF the entire enterprise, something that their consciences will not allow them to do.  
    By the way, as I understand it, this is the distinction that the Arizona law Governor Brewer is agonizing over is intended to codify; meaning that the “reporting” is generally mendacious, as they’re saying that business owners “will not have to serve” homosexual people.  I even heard it reported in that fashion on Fox News.

  • Eidolon

    Here’s a thought experiment. Many cake makers and photographers would consider their work, in addition to being a paid service, to be a form of art. Therefore telling them they cannot discriminate in whose weddings they want to work for amounts to requiring them to use their artistic talent for a cause they disagree with.
    So let’s say a white supremacist group wants to commission Joe the progressive painter to paint pro-white supremacist propaganda.  What would be Joe’s non-discriminatory grounds for rejecting it? Is it really acceptable to leftists to force a person to engage in their art for a cause that they hate or is that only okay when it’s being done to people they don’t like?
    The only objection I can see is that the artist would be objecting to the content, not discriminating against the people. But the cake maker could make the same case; he doesn’t object to gay people, but he objects to gay behavior, therefore he doesn’t want to use his art to be used to promote that behavior. You can argue that gay behavior isn’t comparable, but then you have a judge deciding arbitrarily which legal, public behaviors (and beliefs) are good and which are bad.
    Am I missing something?

  • Eidolon

    I feel like leftists are getting around to realizing that religious freedom has never been compatible with their way of doing things. Now that they control the popular culture they’ve used it to erode public support for religion as much as possible (not with good arguments, of course, but by instilling the idea that it’s “backwards” and “primitive” without the bother of actually teaching what religion says and what the reason behind it is).
    But I suppose leftists have always done this. After all, religion is a crucial bulwark against tyranny, which impedes utopian visions of sweeping changes to society. It’s amazing how leftists will say “of course we agree about this, nobody would dream of disagreement on this point” right up until they decide that no reasonable person could possibly hold that view in this day and age. It happened with gay marriage and it’ll happen with religious freedom in general.
    I think leftism hates anything fixed. Religion stubbornly refuses to change its doctrine whenever it’s told to by leftists, unlike most other areas of our society. Clearly leftists can’t stand for anything to be anchored and not swept in whatever direction the wind is blowing like they are.

  • sabawa

    When will the Left go after shirtless, shoeless people being denied service in any given establishment??   I see those modest, handwritten signs in windows all over the place……”no shirt, no shoes, no service.”    It’s about time someone stood up for those poor, hapless souls…..or is it soles?

  • Ymarsakar

    The next thing it’ll Turing monkey input in is that the US federal government won’t confiscate firearms either.
    Supporter of Obama, so called American or foreign national or foreigner, guarantees that his Leftist masters won’t enforce the Religion of homosexual pleasure via the Prophet Hussein and the Messiah Obama, unto the Catholics.
    The tools and zombies can believe as much of that as they like.

  • Charles Martel

    Matt, it’s pretty obvious that terrapin is not going to respond to any of the posts above or below yours. The m.o. here is to rail against what he thinks is the weakest or most emotional response, then knock it down with a dismissive sneer. I’d say, don’t rise to the bait. If he chooses to engage some of the other comments here, it will be interesting to see how well he holds his own in a room that is not a leftist talking points echo chamber.

    • terrapin

      So what you are saying Charles is that I must engage with the other, mostly off-topic commenters before Matt has to provide a logical response? 
      I don’t quite understand.

  • Bookworm


    You asked to have your argument logically deconstructed?  Okay. 

    “There is a huge difference between a bakery and a church. The latter has First Amendment protection, due to freedom of religion. The first cannot discriminate against people because it is a public accommodation.” 

    The law is not concerned with bakeries.  It’s concerned with individuals.  The First Amendment guarantees individuals that the government cannot impede their free exercise of religion.  Nowhere in America has a bakery or a photography studio tried to ban gays from entering or refused to sell them tangible products.  What individual bakers and photographers have asserted is that they cannot be forced to participate actively in a ceremony that offends their religious sensibilities.  If the gay rights mob has its way, though, the state will coerce the baker and the photographer into to providing services for an activity that they find religiously reprehensible.

    “Your screed would have some legitimacy if you could point to one example of government forcing a church to perform a rite or sacrament. Of course, that has never happened, so you cannot do so.”

    Again, the First Amendment is a contract with individuals.  I don’t need to provide examples of the government forcing a church to perform a rite or sacrament.  All I need to do is to show, as cases in Oregon and Colorado already have, that the state is trying to coerce a religious individual into engaging in an activity that is an affront to traditional religion — and, moreover, an affront to viewpoints that President Obama avidly espoused just a few short years ago.

    “Instead, you cite examples of acts barred by law, which are barred for reasons having nothing to do with religion. The US did not ban polygamy because Mormons practice it.  Same with animal sacrifice.”

    Irrelevant argument.  The point remains that individuals have the constitutional right to practice their faith unimpeded by the state — and that’s the only thing the Arizona law is trying to ensure.  Speaking of animal sacrifice, you cannot win an argument here by sacrificing red herrings to your cause.

    “Also, as too often is the case with marriage equality opponents, you falsely equate civil marriage with religious marriage. You do this to stoke fear, in order to try to find a reason to oppose equality, and, by doing so, you again remind the discerning reader that there is no legitimate reason to deny equality. Thank you for that.”

    What you just stated, Terrapin, is an opinion, not a fact.  When it comes to facts, they comport with my viewpoint.  Jesus himself understood the difference between God and Caesar, Church and State. 

    In non-American countries where there is no such distinction, such as England, the joint church and state can simultaneously make civil and religious changes to advance a social agenda.  It’s different in America.

    The American government has promised citizens that it will not meddle in their religion.  It has specifically disavowed any say in the way in which religious institutions and individuals conduct themselves regarding their own religion — provided that they don’t cross into the areas of murder or physical assault. Unlike the religious arena, which it must avoid, the American government does have a say about taxes, child custody, death duties, etc. 

    To the extent that America has a constitutional separation of church and state, we must, by definition, have a separation between the civil aspects of marriage and the religious ones.  That this is true is demonstrated by the fact that you need a government-issued license to be married in the eyes of the law, and a religious ceremony to be married in the eyes of your community.  The state won’t recognize the ceremony without a license; and the religious institution is under no obligation to recognize the license without a ceremony. 

    What this means is that the state can do whatever the heck it likes with the civil aspects of marriage.  For that reason, as long-time readers know, I have no objection to civil unions, although I’ve suggested that recognizing polygamous civil unions will be a very expensive proposition down the line because of benefits and custody issues. 

    What the state cannot do, however, is impinge on the religious aspects of marriage, either by forcing religious organizations to adjust their long-standing doctrines to comport with prevailing social norms or by coercing individual citizens to act against their religious conscience.

    And there’s your logic, to which is added an understanding of law and history that you did not see fit to include in your comment.

    • terrapin

      There is a big difference between choosing to practice one’s faith and using religion as an excuse to discriminate against others. It is not like there is scripture that says you can’t bake a cake for gay folks. (As an aside, I would never force someone to participate in my wedding against their will. That is just stupid– why bring ill will to a special occasion?)
      My main concern is that you strongly imply that there should not be same-sex marriage equality, and that you point to the unrealistic threat of the state forcing a priest to perform a wedding, in an attempt to bolster the anti-equality position. You cite that bogus threat, then tell me that you don’t have to provide an example  of that threatened act happening. I counter that you do, because the law follows precedent, and without that precedent, the odds are nil that the state will force that gay wedding on the priest in the future.
       Also, as has been the case with all marriage equality cases thus far ( including Texas’ just today), there are no facts whatsoever that justify denying rights to same-sex couples.  
      I see what is happening here. You are setting up these rare bakery cases as the reason why there should not be marriage equality. I guarantee that your last-gasp effort, aside from being intellectually dishonest, is too little, too late. Half of Americans now live in states with equality. By 2016, all will.
      Incidentally, I am appalled at the thinly-veiled threats of violence and revolution in some of these comments. It seems like people realize that they are losing in the courts, the legislatures,  the ballot boxes, and in the public’s opinion, and violence is always a last resort. 

      • Ymarsakar

        I can tell Obama’s SWAT team that you’re here to defect to our side, you know. Guess what’ll happen then.

  • Charles Martel

    terr, you don’t determine what’s off-topic in Bookworm Room. If you don’t care to engage the people here, it’s no hair off our troglodyte asses.
    You’ll excuse me as I set off to read Bookworm’s delightful–and thorough–fisking of your snark.

  • Danny Lemieux

    In response to an FB commentator and member of the clergy that is all up in dithers about the Arizona case, I raised two examples:
    1) if as a member of the clergy, you were asked to officiate at the wedding of a polygamous group, a polyamorous group or a Satanist (who just wanted to make a public statement, should you have the right to refuse?
    2) If you were an Orthodox Jewish proprietor of a kosher butcher that had been serving a Christian family for years and, one day, that family insisted that you start serving ham and bacon, should you have the right to say “no”?
    What is it about “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” that these people do not understand? Ah, rhetorical question: of course they understand. That’s why it needs to be done away with.

  • Charles Martel

    Sorry, Danny, off topic. The topic here is the “right” of gay couples to have you bake them a wedding cake, your silly religious scruples notwithstanding. Please try to focus.

  • Ymarsakar

    T is just a regular Leftist tool, minion of the Leftist death cult, here to tell us why religions that aren’t his Hussein Messiah cult is wrong and anti homosexual.
    It thinks the feds won’t confiscate guns, won’t ban churches, won’t ignore laws, won’t downsize the military to pay for their political vacations. The tool is living in happy land, with a big fat grin as it watches Americans suffer. That’s how it is.

  • Charles Martel

    “My main concern is that you strongly imply that there should not be same-sex marriage equality, and that you point to the unrealistic threat of the state forcing a priest to perform a wedding, in an attempt to bolster the anti-equality position.”
    This is a classic case of hijacking the language through misdirection. Marriage has, until very recently. never been taken by anybody to mean anything other than the union between one man and one woman. For black-robed know-it-alls to proclaim that there is some sort of constitutional emanation, cleverly planted by the Founders for later discovery, that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, therefore eligible to marry within itself, is bilge.
    So, to make a case for the farce of same-sex “marriage,” terrapin appeals to the most sacred word in the leftist lexicon: equality. Never mind that all of us have been unequal forever regarding marriage in that we could not marry somebody of our own sex, we now hear the plaintive call for the ability of a tiny minority of sexual aberrants to declare that they, not the rest of us, can determine what marriage is. Imagine if a bunch of straight people who shop at Sears were to descend on a convention of gay interior decorators and force them to change the definition of accessories or primary colors under pain of legal penalty. I’m sure the left’s panties would bunch in horror.
    Again, I agree with terrapin that the new fascism will wait before pushing directly against the Catholic and Mormon churches to force them to accommodate same-sex weddings. As I pointed out above, the tactic is to attack indirectly, until the churches have been both impoverished and marginalized. Then, when the churches refuse to recognize civil same-sex marriages in any form of accommodation—schools, hiring, charitable outreach, parish hall rentals—the velvet gloves will finally come off. 
    Terrapin is unsettled at the grumblings of some here against the Obama regime’s usurpation of constitutional authority—numerous examples of which I notice s/he does not (and cannot) dispute—and the possibility that people may one day resort to violence, which is their right, to push the new fascism off their backs. Those people didn’t arrive at their stance because they are inherently violent or unreasonable; they have been pushed there by sweetly reasonable people like terrapin who are willing to use the power of law to force people to act  according to the state’s definition (those black-robed savants again) of morality.

    • Ymarsakar

      T was too busy obeying Obama’s commands to bring up healthcare at Christmas and Thanksgiving. That was his master’s orders, to be followed to the letter. It didn’t have much time to study the homosexual issue as much.

    • Ymarsakar

      “they have been pushed there by sweetly reasonable people like terrapin”
      That’s assuming it is a person, which Obama has not yet verified via the whispers.
      Far more likely to be a tool. As a tool, it doesn’t have the right to question a human’s motivations or methods.

  • Ron19

    There is a big difference between choosing to practice one’s faith and using religion as an excuse to discriminate against others.
    Looking at it another way:
    There is a big difference between practicing one’s faith and choosing to use religion as an excuse to discriminate against others.

  • Jose

    This administration has made no secret what their intentions are.  Eric Holder stated in 2011 “We have reinvigorated the important work of our Civil Rights Division. Not only is this office once again open for business, it has never been stronger.”
    “We’ve also expanded enforcement efforts to guarantee that in our work places, our military bases, in our housing and lending markets, in our voting booths in our border areas, in our schools and places of worship. And I mean all places of worship,”
    This from the guy who dropped the Black Panther voting intimidation case.

  • Ymarsakar

    Did T’s Turing emulation box run out of power and now reduces it to only the communications ability of an ant?
    That’s so sad. I would think the Left would create more durable and stamina fuel efficient zombies than that.