Massachusetts was the first state forced by judges to recognize same-sex "marriage". The state legislator passed "anti-discrimination" laws. And, shortly after that, a church was ordered by a judge to let same-sex couples "marry" on Church outside property, because the church let hetersexuals marry there. The church responded by not allowing anyone to marry on their outside property. I don't think there's any danger of preachers ever being forced to perform same-sex marriages, but there's certainly a danger of Christians being marginalized.
I think Christians are in process of being marginalized now.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist group far more voracious in their anti-theist stance than AA (American Atheists) ever were, very often unites with the ACLU in order to insure that is in evidence.
In the UK, Christians are prohibited form adopting children (unless someone has fought back and changed this). Christians aren't explicitly disallowed adoption, but anyone who doesn't approve of sodomy is disallowed, under the excuse that the child might be a homosexual.
I'm amazed! How ignorant is that?
Deny a child a fit home because the potential family embrace Christian values. Hardly fitting for a country wherein there exists the history of the church of England.
I had heard there was a rich gay couple who were looking to sue the CoE for the right to marry in the church. So far I haven't heard the outcome of that decision. But when there is a law against Christians adoption as you have told us, I don't imagine the fight to push the CoE to tolerate the gay agenda is going to cease anytime soon. When secular government discriminates against Christians in the name of the potential of gay rights, given a child may be gay in future, what won't happen next in the name of placating the gay agenda in England?
We have already seen states baring the Boy Scouts from public property over the homosexual issue (including a case of a building the the Scouts donated to the city!). We'll see more of that, where anyone who doesn't approve of sodomy is discriminated against by the government.
Reverse discrimination.
It's as if there is a new closet being constructed to include a sign atop its doorway that reads: Christians Only.
Gays and transsexuals are pushing for special rights in America more and more. And they're getting them.
I read of a woman who sued her boss because she took offense to being identified by traditional terms as a female. This is probably why I don't work with people that pathetically inclined to broadcast not only their sin but their predisposition to mental illness. I'd have addressed her as box turtle.
Female pronouns offend you when you have breasts and a uterus? Okie Dokie boxturtle, can you work overtime this week?
Facebook doesn't help to stem the tide in that regard either. Not long ago they published a new thing in their registration policies. New arrivals, and current members, can select from over 50 different gender options to identify themselves. Labels that are other than the traditional male, female. All that does is interject a meme into that part of society that patronizes Facebook so as to believe those options should be the norm.
Next thing you know we'll have people suing a business because the job application doesn't have a blank line on the Gender block so that people can elect to identify themselves and celebrate their
authentic selves.
What we will see, as the case in much of Europe, is professed Christians disappearing and churches closing, as Christianity is all explicitly outlawed. And, o just because Christians refuse to back down from recognizing sodomy as immoral.
I believe one day we'll see a push to make the Bible qualify as hate speech in some way. While it is virtually impossible to revoke the Constitutional right of free speech, while there are limits now in place on speech, we'll no doubt one day see a push that prosecutes people for reciting scripture or referring to scripture in the secular realm when it comes to gays, trans people, etc...
Southern Poverty Law Center would probably be the one's that lead the push for that. They've already identified certain Christian groups that adhere to Christian principles as hate groups. Because those groups oppose SSM, transsexualism, gay marriage.
That those groups opposition is bibli0-centric already allows the public to infer SPLC is decreeing the scriptures are hate speech. They're just not yet bold enough to say so publicly. But one day it will happen.
The public, including all 50 states, is subjected to nothing but pro-homosexual propaganda in the media, so for that reason alone, it's remarkable that Prop 8 passed. But, there would have been no need for Prop 8 if the majority Democrat population hadn't elected a Democrat government. Anyway, Democrats are no where near as morally liberal as Democrat leaders. Many people vote Democrat for other reasons (unions, socialists, etc.).
The media drives the activist bandwagon. We know what we're told. When media pushes for gay rights and against Christian values, they help to influence the electorate. And the influenced electorate impact the elected. It's a cycle of programming that starts with our TV's.
The latest target to come under attack by the bullying and intolerance exacted by gay rights proponents is, of all things, the World Health Organization.
Insurance News Net - June 27 -
Experts Urge WHO to Stop Classifying Sexual Orientation Issues as 'Disorders'
"Equal protection" shouldn't apply to Sodomies for a number of reasons. If you want to be crass about equal protection, we should let children drive. We should let children drive drunk! That's equal protection of children and heavy drinkers!
I don't think the forefathers saw this coming when the 14th amendment was written. But you're right. The precedent that is set invoking the 14th for gay marriage, and transsexuals being afforded special protections, gives other communities a heads up.
There's already a push to normalize and give legal rights to pedophiles. The intention is to turn the sexual disorientation into a classification, and legally protected, sexual orientation. American Family Association started the report that the American Psychiatric Association had reclassified Pedophilia as a sexual orientation. That error was corrected and AFA said that the APA claimed their classification of pedophilia as a sexual orientation in the newest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (DSM) was a clerical error. (
APA Reverses Decision to Classify Pedophilia as Sexual Orientation – Calls New Pedophilia Citation in Disorder Manual, “A Clerical Error”)
But that doesn't mean it isn't an agenda in the pedo-community to have their immoral sinful behavior legitimized by the classification of sexual orientation so as to imply normalcy.
The 14the Amendment itself guarantees the the right to vote only to males! (It didn't ban women from voting, either.) Obviously, those who wrote the 14th Amendment didn't even have in mind the modern concept of "equal protection" even between man and woman, let alone between morally straight people and sexual perverts. Never mind that every one has always had the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Really!
Ephebophiles are already entitled to exercise their rights in those states that permit minors meeting the sexual age of consent standard to marry their predator with parental consent on the marriage license.
This little known fact became well known when the ephebophile, and Green Mile actor, Doug Hutchison, at 53, married a 16 year old girl.
Just because you're not interested pursuing a right doesn't mean you're not equally protected!
True. It goes back to the pedophiles, and even the zoophiles, who could invoke their rights to equal protection given the precedent that has already been set with the gay rights special privileges to marry.
Though for the zoophiles it would be an easier road to hoe considering there are over 10 states that have laws that permit bestiality. Run little goats, runnnnnn!
Given the context of the 14th Amendment, "equal protection" doesn't mean government accommodation of diverse interests. Read the "equal protection" clause in the context, " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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." Equal protection means the same due process. If you're a accused of something, you get a trial no matter who you are. If the government wants to take something from you, it has to go to court, no matter who you are.
This is why I am surprised Christian oriented legal activist groups, like Liberty, aren't finding the loopholes for the push back on these issues.
Christians are being persecuted, and sometimes prosecuted, when a Christian is forced to undergo
"sensitivity" training courses in order to unlearn his/her commitment to her/his faith in matters of immoral persons and behaviors.
And those Christians are being forced to choose between holding to the tenets of their faith, or losing their job unless or until they agree to the
newspeak programming the sensitivity training courses implant into them. A methodology that delivers the message, under threat, that that Christian employee learn to tolerate outrageous sinful behaviors if they want to continue to survive themselves through gainful employment.
Well said!
.... who cares anyway...as long as you stand up for what is right? Would you not stand up against racism 40 years ago??
