Culture Ethics Institutions Politics

Why civil disobedience is irrelevant to gay marriage (COMMENTARY)

Joe Capley-Alfano, left, and Frank Capley-Alfano of Oakland, Calif., stand in front of the Supreme Court on April 28, 2015 as justices heard arguments about same-sex marriage. The couple have been together for 15 years and married in 2008 before Proposition 8 halted gay marriage in California until 2013. Religion News Service photo by Adelle M. Banks
Joe Capley-Alfano, left, and Frank Capley-Alfano of Oakland, Calif., stand in front of the Supreme Court on April 28, 2015 as justices heard arguments about same-sex marriage. The couple have been together for 15 years and married in 2008 before Proposition 8 halted gay marriage in California until 2013. Religion News Service photo by Adelle M. Banks

Joe Capley-Alfano, left, and Frank Capley-Alfano of Oakland, Calif., stand in front of the Supreme Court on April 28, 2015, as justices heard arguments about same-sex marriage. The couple have been together for 15 years and married in 2008 before Proposition 8 halted gay marriage in California until 2013. Religion News Service photo by Adelle M. Banks

(RNS) Despite threats from some conservative Christian dissenters, civil disobedience may turn out to be an irrelevant response to gay marriage.

To understand why, we have to think seriously about what civil disobedience really is.

Here’s a good definition: If a government mandates what religious people believe God forbids, or forbids what religious people believe God mandates, civil disobedience may be required.

In the first case civil disobedience involves the refusal to do what government commands, and in the second case it involves the continued practice of an act that government has banned.

Could this apply to the new legalization of gay marriage nationwide?

The federal government has not mandated that houses of worship or clergy perform gay marriages. Nor has it forbidden congregations or clergy from performing such nuptials. Government has permitted gay marriages — and thus the solemnization of these marriages by whoever is authorized to offer it.

Therefore, those who wish to perform gay weddings are free to do so, and those who do not wish to perform them are free to decline. There are no legitimate grounds for civil disobedience here.

If the government were one day to mandate that congregations or clergy perform gay marriages, this would be grounds for civil disobedience — and a violation of religious liberty. But that is hardly a realistic possibility.

But what about government officials who are now required to register or perform civil gay marriages, in violation of their consciences?

In my view, regardless of whether state officials like a particular law, they are required to submit to it in the performance of their duties — or should resign from office.

Government clerks are not religious officials. Nor are they simply individual citizens who might find a government’s law to be a violation of conscience. They are on the state payroll. Refusal to adhere to or enforce the law on the part of a government official is dereliction of duty, not civil disobedience.

After the court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, some anti-abortion Christians argued that civil disobedience is permissible or even obligatory where government merely permits what God forbids, such as abortion. Thus some Christians chained themselves to abortion clinic doors and otherwise participated in civil disobedience not because they were mandated to perform abortions, but because others were permitted to do so.

This view was not shared by a large number of Americans and was never accepted by government officials. Eventually the movement ran out of steam, partly because it was so strident.

Civil disobedience happened all the time during the civil rights era, when government permitted blatant racist discrimination.

Few would consider government permission of gay marriage to reach that level of moral seriousness. Public sympathy is far more likely to favor the LGBT community than those who object to gay marriage.

Take a much more legitimate fear on the part of today’s dissenters — that government will mandate changes in the policies of religious congregations, social-service or educational organizations. The most obvious places where this could happen would be related to admissions, hiring or other policies that discriminate for religious-ethical reasons against married, sexually active or “out” LGBT people.

In this case, the government would, in effect, be mandating that religious institutions accept behaviors, or people performing behaviors, or people claiming an identity that some of these institutions believe God forbids.

It seems very unlikely that government would simply mandate that religious organizations change such policies. It might, however, withdraw tax-exempt status, not from congregations, but from religious organizations.

Or it might ban federal funds, such as government social-service contracts, research grants or student loans, from going to such organizations. This is not the same thing as simply banning such organizations from adhering to their preferred policies, but for many organizations it remains a nightmare scenario.

There would be no form of civil disobedience available in such cases. The real fight would be within the legal and political system, and it is in fact already happening.

But no organizational leader will be arrested or imprisoned if these organizations stick to their policies, and if government withdraws financial assistance (by no means a certainty).

No organization will be raided and padlocked. No civil disobedience strategy will be relevant.

Instead, such organizations essentially will be shut out from using government dollars, with predictably scary effects on their bottom lines and reputations.

If these policies are sufficiently important to these organizations, they may well want to prepare for the day when they will have to function without continued access to tax-exempt status or government dollars.

Rev. Dr. David Gushee is Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics and Director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University. Photo courtesy of Mercer University

The Rev. David Gushee is Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics and director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University. Photo courtesy of Mercer University

Of course, they do have other options. They could change the relevant policies, perhaps under protest, while claiming no change in their values. They could do this because they decide that their organizational mission is too important to let it wither because of its LGBT policies.

Or, of course, they could take this as an opportunity to dig deeper and actually reconsider their beliefs about LGBT people and their relationships, as some of us have already done.

In short, for dissenters on gay marriage, civil disobedience is not going to be a useful tactic. A different kind of struggle is in the offing. It will be conducted in public opinion, in government advocacy, in the courts — and maybe in the hearts and minds of fellow Americans.


About the author

David Gushee


Click here to post a comment

  • Christians need to understand that The Church was formed in a depraved society much like the one that exists today. 20th and 21st century Gay pride was delivered to society riding on the wave of atheism. It has nothing to do with Christian life.

    This article is designed to further the propaganda of gay pride and paint the Christians as the bad guys. C’mon Christians, just give these homosexuals a “marriage” certificate and let them go to their secular and eternal fate. Gay marriage is antithetical to Christian life only to those that engage in the behavior.

  • Gushee is just another gay activist. Christians just need to humor these kinds of people in secular life and stay as far away from them as possible in Christian life. There’s no doubt that Peter, Paul and especially Jude make it clear that Gushee types are going to be prevalent in a society that literally IS the world and its ways.

    This gay pride thing will become more and more hateful towards Christians because of people like Gushee selling out the Gospel for pop culture gains. But in the end, the Truth wins out. This is all reaffirming that the New Testament was written about the kinds of people like Gushee that sowed false doctrines and approved sinful behaviors among The Church body. There’s no doubt that he is going to try force Christians to show obeisance to the rainbow idol. No doubt.

    Christians that are employed in government positions just need to do their job and pray without ceasing whenever “they” are not looking.

  • Hardly surprising that atheism is so popular. Atheism teaches one to be happy. Atheism also teaches a person to love themselves. There is no argument against ‘happiness’ and ‘self love’. It will be a great day when hypocrites can no longer make money off religion.

  • MaximC,

    Wow, another animated Mud Pie “person” weighs in. Gotta love it when a materialist wants to present “love” as something that actually exists.

    Yup, atheism makes for so happy indeed, that California had to pass a law that ya’ just can’t have happy sexual intercourse with a person that is passed out, too drunk, or otherwise incapacitated.

    I think the word you’re searching for Maxie is narcissism. Atheism creates narcissism in the mind of the godless secularist.

  • Be Brave,
    I appreciate your thoughtful comments and insight which remind us to be gentle when dealing with unbelievers. Personally, it is very difficult for me to be kind and gentle to child molesters.

  • Herein lies the problem with liberal Christians. Gushee is far too deferential to the bigoted conservative fundamentalist Christians in thinking they will bother to consider what he has to say or that they are receptive to honest, sensible takes on a situation.

    He misses the real expression of “civil disobedience” from that crowd, discrimination in public accommodations. People who have businesses open to the public who want to act like they are in 1960’s Alabama and say, “we don’t serve your kind, God says so”. People being fined for violating anti-discrimination laws are not martyrs. Eff that wannabe Jim Crow crap.

    Gushee is right that civil servants not doing their jobs is not civil disobedience, nor will churches have to lift a finger to do anything differently. He forgets how easily fundamentalists lie when it comes to the nexus of church and government. How churches claim to be “persecuted” when they violate rules concerning entitlement to government benefits.

  • In the context of ordinary civilized society, we recognize that gay marriage will probably not have a direct legal impact on most Churches yet. Presently, the most pervasive direct legal impact is on the sanctity of traditional families which are now required-by-law to accommodate the public indoctrination of all children and young people to adopt a social ethic which embraces sexual immorality,

  • My 4 year old grandson just came home with a rainbow-colored fish. Cute, right?
    I was wondering, though, as a Christian, do I have the right to sue the school for promoting gay symbols in this subtle way? It’s hanging on the refrigerator right now, and I don’t want friends thinking I support gay marriage.

  • The author is naïve if he does not understand that the heavy hand of the state is going to come down hard on Christians. The gay movement and its enforcers will not tolerate any dissent. That’s why even if there are a hundred bakers available to bake for a gay wedding, a lone dissenter will still be identified and shut down. This is decidedly not about access to services. It is about silencing those who disagree. It is a totalitarian, ugly and un-Christian.

  • Do you really believe that knowledgeable people are going to believe your propaganda that is completely untrue–what else can you expect from a U professor.
    How can you say it permits and you can refuse when people are being sued, losing jobs, defamed and threatened for speaking against, refusing to participate and submit to requests? You must be talking to the Ellen Genres audience. And yes, it does have an impact on Churches: we run schools, orphanages, charities, hospitals, etc. We have been forced to close some of these doors and know more will be closed.

  • Well, according to so many of the dominionists and theocrats here, the rainbow is a symbol of god’s love, and not a symbol of the horrible, awful, immoral, hates-gos-and-love-satan, fascist, authoritarian homosexualismists.

    So, it sounds like you are free to interpret any so-called symbols in any way you wish.

  • David Gushee makes some good points, but still leaves the same impression I get of other Christianity Today types of his generation — they desperately want to be like the “cool kids” and think the best way to do that is to take as many liberal positions as possible while still calling themselves evangelical. The problem with that tactic is that the cool kids will never accept them so long as they retain an evangelical affiliation.

    The other problem is what to do if the nation shifts rightward again, as it did in the 1980s. What’s a Christianity Today cultural conformist to do then?


  • Yet 70% of americans are Christians. Funnyhow that works.

    The author is naïve if he does not understand that the heavy hand of the state is going to come down hard on gay people. The dominionist Christian movement and its enforcers will not tolerate any dissent. That’s why even if there are a hundred bakers available to bake for a gay wedding, a lone dissenter will still be identified and raised to the level of a persecuted martyr, instead of an incompetent businessman. This is decidedly not about freedom to believe. It is about silencing those who disagree. It is a totalitarian, ugly and decidedly theocratic Christian.

    see how easy that is?

  • @Chiro

    A handful of cake martyrs, trotted out over and over again, people too stupid to understand that there are laws which protect all people in the practice of their religious beliefs from discrimination. Instead what we get is Christian exceptionalism, fake martyrdom, even faker “persecution.”

    Who has been required to close their doors? Not Catholic social Services. They CHOSE to.

    “My religious beliefs say that I must…” is sincere religious belief.

    “My religious beliefs say that YOU must…” is theocracy.

  • I don’t think so, Roberts. Atheism is for the affluent and the privileged and for people whose needs are being met pretty much across the board. That’s most of us at least some of the time, but that does not characterize 99% of humanity.

    The belief system that’s going to resume its upward climb is some form of New Age… get to be your own god, surrender nothing, and pretend you’re literally one with the rest of reality. It’s way too seductive not to become the wave of the future, especially as globalism makes nations obsolete and calls for global governance are amplified.

    Right now, the world’s heading the opposite way – with the rise in terrorism and other forces of entropy. But in the long run, look for some form of New Age to prevail.

    That will be awful news for Christians and Jews, because there is no room in pantheism for groups that preach holiness and individuality and separation.

    But atheism is going nowhere in the long run. It has nothing…

  • So you are saying religion is for the destitute and unfree. I can see that. Religion has long been a tool of reactionary politics and autocracy. You are making the same argument people make when they make excuses why developed nations are brutal dictatorships. “They are just not ready to be free”.

    You are not making a good case for religion. If anything you are showing why it is becoming more of a liability in the world than something worthy of preserving.

  • I respect atheism more than New Age, and in a way, atheism has far more in common with Christianity and Judaism than with New Age, but I don’t see a future for a belief that in the real world depends on nearly-perfect environmental conditions for people to accept.

  • “what else can you expect from a U professor.”

    Well informed and educated arguments. 🙂

  • Larry, I’m not a natural propagandist like you are. Thus not everything I write is calculated to make my views look attractive. I try to call things as I see them.

    Atheism is a make-believe system that is based on the mythology that we are masters of our fate, captains of our destiny. When we’re flying high in life, that’s easy to believe. We feel we don’t need anything or anybody but ourselves.

    But that’s not real life. Most people have struggles in life that quickly puncture that mythology.

    And that’s atheism’s ultimate problem in attracting people. Psychologically, it only satisfies people when all’s going well.

    But I would add that objectively speaking, it’s hooey anyway, since it requires me to believe that everything I see just happened all by its lonesome. Since I’m not one for intellectual suicide or magical thinking, that’s no real option.

  • Todd, it is definitely totalitarian, but be careful in not attributing this attitude to most gay people. For decades, the far left has made a habit of taking legitimate grievances of groups whom society has marginalized — from gays to African Americans to immigrants to women — and used them in attempts to radicalize people in these groups.

    Don’t confuse the radicals with most of the people. The vast majority of gay people just want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit and have no interest in bullying bakers and other ridiculous stuff, but those who’ve been radicalized are actually leftists first and gays second. Ditto for other groups.

  • For the Christian dominionists and theocrats present here: your Grand Canyon sized egos have taken a big hit and you can’t take it! You have said for 2000 years that gay people are evil and despicable, the worst of the worst, and that is how it is suppose to be in society. For 2000, years have they used gay people to project all your own wickedness onto.

    And you lost to the people that you were certain god and society despise almost as much as you do. You lost to them filthy, dirty homosexuals!

    How it must eat away at your sense of superiority, entitlement, and moral perfection!

    I guess we should feel bad for you poor, little persecuted things?

  • “Atheism is a make-believe system that is based on the mythology that we are masters of our fate, captains of our destiny.”

    And you said you weren’t a propagandist. Well you certainly are not a good one. That is a perfect recount of all the silly tropes fundamentalists use when demonizing atheism and shows narry a hint of knowledge of what they are really like.

    “Atheists are selfish, atheists are egomaniacs, atheists are nilhilists”. All that nonsense your average priest and pastor tells his flock when they feel threatened by people saying, “we don’t believe”.

    “Since I’m not one for intellectual suicide or magical thinking, that’s no real option.”

    That is the closest you came to what atheism is actually like. Such irony 🙂

  • Jack, you may well be correct. But even if you are, the people to whom you refer are similar (at least in some respects) to the peaceful Muslims who sit by silently as atrocities are committed in the name of their religion. I do not see a groundswell of gays standing up for the right of traditional marriage supporters to live by their religious beliefs. They certainly did not support Indiana when it sought to legislate religious freedom.

  • Ben-Your attitude exhibits the complete absence of grace that will lead many to seek the destruction of their ideological opponents. And you are factually wrong. No one is coming down on gay people. Certainly no one with any power. What really bothers many gay people, I think, is the gnawing feeling that no matter who they silence or how many victories they achieve, they are not likely to find the peace and acceptance they crave. That peace will come only through Christ. And therein lies the need to destroy the church’s opposition to their lifestyle. At least that’s my opinion.

  • “No one is coming down on gay people. ”

    Except for the nabobs who are trying to falsely equate religious freedom with license to discriminate in public accommodations. Its so nice of you to forget they exist. I am pretty sure Ben has no such luxuries, being someone who would be on the receiving end of their malicious actions.

  • ” I do not see a groundswell of gays standing up for the right of traditional marriage supporters to live by their religious beliefs.”

    Because the typical examples of of “living by their religious beliefs” has been displayed as excuses to engage in harmful discriminatory behavior. Why on earth would you be so delusional to expect people who are being discriminated against to welcome those who act badly towards them?

    Its like saying you don’t see a groundswell of black people supporting the rights of people living by their deeply held beliefs of keeping races separately.

  • Larry, you are conflating criticism of a belief with criticism of people holding to that belief. Maybe it’s because you do that constantly with Christians.

    I have simply explained why I’m not an atheist and why I think atheism is hooey, as well as why I don’t think it has a bright future.

    But that doesn’t mean I think atheists are bad people. I don’t at all, and in fact I have repeatedly made that distinction on these boards, and have refuted people who cast moral aspersions on atheists simply for being atheists.

    What I do believe is that the philosophy of atheism provides no logical grounds for the goodness, decency, and humanity that I have personally seen in atheists I call friends. I like to tell one of my atheist friends that he behaves far better than Christians I know. He is an amazing human being in every way and is making a real impact in his field.

  • You need to make stuff up about the beliefs of a group and chalk it up as alleged criticism. If those were the reasons you are not an atheist, then my suggestion is you bother to educate yourself more about them in their own words.

    “philosophy of atheism provides no logical grounds for the goodness, decency, and humanity that I have personally seen in atheists I call friends”

    Such things have been explained to you ad nauseum, but you repeatedly shown no interest in reading them.

    I scarcely call religious philosophy to be much of a basis for goodness, decency and humanity. At best it is a shorthand for those who lack the patience to contemplate such things in depth. It is arbitrary and far too deferential to unquestioned authority to be of much use for understanding morality. Too many use religion as the basis for acting in inhumane ways. Even more galling is dishonest calling such things “loving”.

    “Human decency is not derived from religion it precedes it”

  • bqrq, it’s wrong to call gay people “child molesters.” While some undoubtedly are, so undoubtedly are heterosexuals among us. And even if you insist that a larger percentage of homosexuals than heterosexuals molest children, and somehow can provide proof of that, it still is dead wrong to imply that all or most of them are. I know gay people who would never harm anyone, let alone a child.

    Yes, I am against gay marriage and attempts by the radical left to destroy religious freedom in its name, but what you’re doing goes way beyond such opposition. You are degrading and dehumanizing fellow human beings, men and women who were made in God’s image just as we were, and are as precious to God as we are. Most gay people are not rabid activists who want to take our freedom away. They are not demons or monsters…..they are fellow human beings….and we are no better or worse than they are.

    In the end, we are all in the same boat….we all need God’s mercy in all ways.

  • @todd:Complete lack of grace? I quoted your own words back at you, making the switch from Christian to gay.

    Ideological destruction? No one is interested in destroying you, ideologically or otherwise. You dominionist Christians insist on making it all about you, and how persecuted you are because you no longer have dominion over our lives. Too bad.

    No one is coming down on gay people? Not any more, at least not with the power they used to have. Sodomy laws, don’t ask don’t tell, now marriage bans– gone. But they are still trying for a constitutional amendment, still the religious freedom, aka right to discriminate laws.

    and of course, we must really be unhappy, otherwise we’d stop protesting 2000 years of misery so called Christians have inflicted on us, and would if they could still get away with it.

    church,s opposition to my “lifestyle?” Must be talking about YOUR church only, because there are plenty who disagree with you. But they’re not TRUE CHRISTIANS…

  • Todd, that’s a good point, but the two are not quite the same. From the small number that I know, gays are no more interested in trumpeting their sexuality before the cameras than we are as heterosexuals. So it would be awkward to expect them to march in the streets by the thousands supporting religious freedom. The very act of marching would by definition be doing exactly what they don’t want to do, and that is to stereotype themselves as personalities whose sole or main identity is sexual.

    Not so with Muslims. I have a lot less tolerance of the reticence of moderate Muslims to stand up and stand strong against extremism. But on the other hand, I have no tolerance for a media, liberal and conservative alike, that refuse to interview Muslim moderates. Fox interviews Zuhdi Jasser, a gem of a human being, but there are others besides him who deserve air time as well…..he is not alone.

  • You don’t see it because you simply don’t want to. We’re not the ones claiming that churches will be forced to marry people they disapprove of, and we have NEVER pushed for it. That’s all you, and it flies in the face of reality.

    what you are calling religious freedom in Indiana, anybody without a theocratic brain was calling a right to discriminate on the basis of religious belief in public accommodations.

    Keep up with the poor persecuted me narrative. I’m sure it makes you feel squishy inside.

    As I’ve written elsewhere, I went to the gay pride parade in San Francisco two weeks ago. Dominionist Christianity was completely absent, both in the rhetoric of the speeches and in the physical presence. We couldn’t not care about you any less than we already don’t.

    Believe what you like. I don’t care. But if you continue to demand dominion over our lives, and insist that you don’t have to follow the laws that govern all of us, expect to keep on losing in the court of…

  • BQRQ again? What? hard to type QRQ with only one hand?

    Why are you so fascinated with your lurid imaginings over my sex life? Isn’t there anything else to do in your mom’s basement?

    Have a Kleenex.

  • Thanks, jack. But he can’t cut the crap. He’s too repressed, obsessed, and for all in know….

  • Ben, we are on precisely opposite sides on the issues, perhaps irrevocably so, but I get where you’re coming from. You are not preaching to deaf ears.

  • Every single demand that we shut up, give them “respect” (again, meaning: silence and an allowance to keep acting as if they won rather than lost), and stop being “hateful” is being made while they peek at us through bloody fingers. Their hands are so close to their faces that they can’t even see the blood streaming down their wrists.

    They have turned their gazes away from the lives they have destroyed, the children they have murdered and abandoned, the bullying they have done, or the constant stream of filthy smears they have made against a marginalized group–marginalized, remember, because of their hateful pseudo-love–that never actually posed a threat to anything of theirs. They can’t see any of that. …

  • …When this information gets shared with them, they try to silence the messenger–because the message runs so contrary to their crafted and curated self-image. Their emotional paychecks depend on seeing themselves as the “good guys”: the embattled paladins of truth and justice fighting against a monstrous and agelessly-evil enemy. The truth would destroy that image of themselves they hold so dear–and would put into question all the other false ideas they hold. But all of this is their problem and not ours.

    Until they wash their hands and get cleaned up, they have no right at all to try to shut anyone up for pointing out their error. We however have every right to talk about that error, and we will continue to do so.

    We are not being hateful, and we will not be shamed into silence by those culture-warrior Christians feeling stung over their loss.***

    We are not being hateful, any more than they were ever being loving.

  • I don’t agree. Society overall degraded the institution of marriage over the past 50 years, Christians included. The pride in virginity has been cast aside, sex w/out love became the norm, living together became common, and cheating on your spouse became just an issue to see a therapist. Sex became the goal, and condoms, pills, IUD’s, and abortion have helped elevate sex to its idol status.
    With the dignity of marriage so trashed, why is it not surprising that gays can act similarly ? No one bats an eye when people marry five, six times in a lifetime. Everyone says “til death us do part”, but that is more likely to only happen when you marry at eighty.
    So, few people view marriage with the sanctity it once held,and deserves. This is how society now is capable of accepting gay marriage. In many ways, marriage has become meaningless. Only some Religions respect its real value, and hopefully will restore what true marriage is.

  • Nice try, Larry, but the points stand. Your accusation was based on crude stereotyping of Christians and was easily refutable.

    In the mean time, you are still unable to refute the plain fact that atheism provides no philosophical grounds or explanation for the goodness we see in atheists and theists alike nor in the values most of us share such as fundamental human rights that no country or culture can abridge. Take God out of the opening of the Declaration of Independence and the whole thing unravels; we’re reduced to saying, “human rights exist because we say they do” — a worthless statement if ever there was one. Remove the belief that human beings are qualitatively different from other beings by virtue of being created in the image of God and you’ve knocked out any argument for saying it’s wrong to enslave a human being as one does to a horse or ox.

  • “The pride in virginity has been cast aside, sex w/out love became the norm, living together became common, and cheating on your spouse became just an issue to see a therapist. Sex became the goal, and condoms, pills, IUD’s, and abortion have helped elevate sex to its idol status.”

    Mostly because religious notions concerning sex were arbitrary, primarily for demographically dominating a region and horrific towards women who sought to be more than baby making machines.

    People who claimed “dignity in marriage” always looked a blind eye to domestic abuse, and preferred arbitrary pronouncements about marriage rather than understanding of what goes on within them. Extolling something without knowing its reality.

    “In many ways, marriage has become meaningless”

    Except for those people who had to overcome bigotry under the color of law in order to get married.

  • Crude stereotyping? You guys are doing everything possible to prove me correct.

    You don’t want to read about how atheists form their moral behavior. Never did. If you had you would not have made such a patently untrue, defamatory statement about their alleged (but not ever demonstrated) beliefs.

    You have no moral standing. You have been trying to justify legalized discrimination. If you claim your morality comes from religion, then it is a perfect example of what a poor job it does.

    God was never in the Declaration of Independence. So it reads just as it always did. Evidently lying for the Lord is more examples of that self-serving religious morality I was describing. Religion was used to extol slavery as much it was used to opposed it. Are you taking history lessons from Shawnie again? You don’t believe that God gives human beings value because you support their discrimination. If you needed God to tell you slavery is wrong, you are a sociopath. Any human being can see…

  • That’s okay, bqrq. I know it’s easy in the heat of battle to forget the humanity of people on the other side. These are serious issues and we need to stand up and fight but we must at the same time remember our common humanity. I’m speaking to myself, too.

    I have no illusions about the ruthlessness of people who want to shut down Christianity and Christians. All I’m saying is that we must never dehumanize people if we can help it, certainly not bystanders who are not in this fight.

    Thanks for hearing me out on this.


    Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

    Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the life stance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

  • Ben, I obviously agree that churches won’t be forced to marry those they disapprove of. That an easy one to refute, at least from what I can tell. What isn’t so easy are the other religious freedom concerns that will likely be emerging in the coming months and years. We shall see how each side behaves as they emerge. And we will learn who’s who and what’s what — on both sides.

  • Too neat and simple, Larry…..

    You’re forgetting one big thing regarding women:

    There was and is a far from complete overlap between the sexual revolution and feminism. In fact, on many issues, there’s a continued tension between the two.

    Your post presumes the two are virtually identical.

  • What an amazing amalgam of hypocrisy, ignorance, bile, and nostalgia for a time that never was, all rolled up in one cute 1000 character package.

    Marriage has been in decline in the civilized world for the last century, especially since World War II, for a large variety of demographic cultural, and sociological reasons. You admit that Christian heterosexuals have trashed marriage, but still managed to blame gay people for it. Yet, we are the people that are fighting for marriage: not pretend fighting for a mythical Ideal, but truly fighting for it.

    You admit that Christian heterosexuals have trashed marriage, but still managed to blame gay people for it. Yet, we are the people that are fighting for marriage: not pretend fighting for a mythical ideal, but truly fighting for it.

    My marriage is meaningful to me. If yours is not beciase my marriage exists, hen I would suggest that yours never was too meaningful to begin with.

  • But let’s explore that theme for a minute, shall we, Dominic?

    Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, is refusing to issue marriage licenses to Dem Icky Gayz because of the sanctity of marriage, and sin, and all that good Christian stuff. She refuses to to be persecuted– what civilized people would call DO HER DAM’ JOB– because she is a bible believing Christian.

    Yet ya know what’s funny about Miss Sanctimonious. She has been married FOUR TIMES.

    FOUR DAM’ TIMES. And the two men she is hypocritically and sanctimoniously refused to issue a CIVIL MARRIAGE LICENSE to only want to get married once.

    soyou are right. Christians have been trashing marriage since August the Strong had his 300 mistresses– though he would only admit to 12. And before, And since.

    But somehow, you use Christian hypocrisy as a means to attack gay people for not being sanctimonious hypocrites.

    Motes and beams, my brother is Christ.

    Motes and beams.

  • “Nabobs?”

    Who are you, Spiro Agnew?

    Larry’s inner Nixon has emerged. (Surprise, surprise)

  • Bang on Larry.

    As I said earlier, your wholly unwarranted belief in your completely imaginary superiority has taken a major hit, and all you can do is blame us for it.

  • Larry, that’s nonsense. There’s an obvious difference between refusing to serve a customer, period, and declining a specific request by a customer.

  • Not sure who’s talking to whom, but I’m curious what a Christian “dominionist” is. Based on my purely theological definition, I oppose it, as do 90% of evangelicals in this country, but yours might be different.

  • An interesting study in hypocrisy indeed. Wow….

    But the fact that she’s a hypocrite — as are plenty of other people in this world on any number of things — doesn’t take us anywhere on the issue itself. It’s always fun to play “find-the-hypocrite-in-this-bogus-morality-play” but it still doesn’t take us anywhere.

    I guess it illustrates Christ’s point about beams and motes and eyes, sure. But then what?

    We’re back where we started from….two sides arguing and lying like hell to one another.

    Pardon my cynicism.

  • Never said Gays are the cause of the degrading of the married state. They have benefitted by the societal change in attitudes towards marriage, and they had nothing to do with it. The sexual revolution, I say, began the decline in people wanting to commit to another person for life. What heteros were calling “a piece of paper that we don’t need” is now what the gays have been awarded. Of course, recognizing the Gay Rights movement as fair, and allowing civil privileges to them only paved the way for them to be officially married. I don’t think its right, but I can see how this evolution took place so easily.

  • Time will tell on many things, Ben. But I find it curious that the strongest original supporters of same-sex marriage were some of the same people who’ve been telling us from time immemorial that marriage is just a piece of paper, marriage is meaningless, marriage is obsolete, marriage is oppressive, marriage is a straitjacket, marriage violates human nature, at least in its monogamous form, and all the rest.

    If someone hates marriage that much, and thinks it’s some horrid institution that no sane modern person should ever enter into, why in the world would that same person recommend it so heartily to anyone, let alone propose its expansion to gay people? If I despise something and believe it is nothing but trouble, why would I recommend it to anyone else?

    And yet, that is what happened.

    I don’t pretend to have a ready explanation, although I have some ideas, but it’s a curious thing indeed.

  • Well, the clerk has the right, for now, to act according to her conscious even though her track record in marriage is morally questionable.
    The idea of same sex unions to her is apalling and sinful, and she only has to raise a Bible to back her up. Of course, she doesn’t question her own behavior for it remains, at least, in the male/female tradition. Perhaps she just hates gays. Perhaps she believes she’s a good Christian….I don’t know. It will be interesting to see in the future if those refusing gay marriage services will need to have their religious devotion and adherence verified before they can refuse services. Or are certain gays baiting specific people to yell discrimination? Who knows? This battle will rage for quite awhile.

  • Jack, you can google Christian dominionist if you wish. But i’ll give you my definition of it.

    Someone who believes that Christians who share his particular, peculiar beliefs and completely theological concerns about what the bible says and what God wants should be able to enforce those beliefs through civil law and the coercive power of the state upon people who don’t share those beliefs.

    Thus, Dominionists are not shy about calling for the death penalty for gay people, blue laws, or declaring our country a Christian nation.

  • Names. Statements. Publications. Organizations.

    Because a few idiots said something once, doesn’t mean much.

  • No, jack, it’s not OK, not in any way shape or form. I’m am sick to death of so called Christians slandering and reviling away, in violation of the terms of service on this website, in violation of human decency, in violation of any possible claim to decency, compassion, or intellect.

    The ONLY reason I tolerate it at all is that I want that. Asked bigotry to be seen for what it is. Someday, perhaps you will get really sick of it, and see it for what it is– a violation of everything being a Christian is supposed to stand for.

    Meanwhile, they are doing our work for us.

  • Larry, you tried to say that I believed that atheists were immoral because that’s what your favorite hate sites say Christians believe, when I specifically refuted that bigoted view not once but many times on these boards. Since then, you’ve been trying unsuccessfully to recover.

    As for your statement, “God was never in the Declaration of Independence,” I hope for your sake that you’re joking:

    What do you think “Creator” means, as in “endowed by our Creator?”

    Show me how to arrive at the notion of “unalienable rights” without smuggling in a Creator……But you, of course, know better than the signatories…..Of course.

  • Ben, I was offended, I expressed my being offended, he apologized for the offense, and I forgave him.

    People have forgiven others for a lot worse, as we’ve seen regarding the Charleston horror.

  • Actually, Ben, we agree fully on the definition.

    Base on that definition, which has always been my own, I am definitely not a dominionist, but believe it is a heresy….and in my belief, I have the backing of virtually every denomination and movement in Christendom.

    And as I said, the vast majority of evangelicals agree with me on this. Dominionism as you and I define it, which is the way theologians define it, is heresy.

  • Jack, atheism is simply the lack of belief in God. One cannot derive moral principles from it, except for the one about not believing things that are patently untrue.

    Atheists and humanists are not the same thing, though they do overlap, as do religious beliefs and humanism.

    It doesn’t take too many bedrock moral principles to build up a reasonable system of morality. The golden rule is certainly one of those, but Confucius propounded it 500 years before Christ. “Do no harm”– aesculaipus, some 300 years before Christ. “We have to have some rules in order to live together”– savage tribes everywhen and everywhere who never heard of Jesus.

    I consider myself a highly moral, principled, peaceful person. I don’t harm others, I try to treat them well, to do my bit. Did I need God to tell me to do that? No. Why? Because that makes life better for me and for everyone around me.

    Look at people like BB and BQRQ. these are people with too much religion and a deficit of…

  • Atheism literally is nothing. Nothing from nothing makes for insanity. Look at how mental illness grows in the godless milieu.

    The whole poor and religion thing is great for humanist propaganda, but just look at the families coming and going in Evangelical Churches, and the goofiness in the hatred/Christian caricature is just that. The hapless secularists are the ones that hear voices, are depressed and are leaning on psychotropic drugs and controlled substances to get them to the dead and decaying stage of their soulless existence.

  • Kind? Just as I am to any depraved individual or group. Keep them front and center and never take your eyes off them. Gushee is the very kind of miscreant Jude highlights in letter of warning to fellow believers.

    Some things never change. I why would we expect that anyway? Human nature is what it is. Gushee knows where the buck Is made. And keeping oneself from being polluted from the world isn’t going to pay the big bills or get one famous in the Hollywood and New York circles.

    Just watch the enemy and stay away from their camps.

  • Ben,

    The gay propagandists appropriated both “coming out” and the rainbow, in fine satanic fashion. Turning what is holy into something evil.

    The Church, Ekklesia: The Called OUT Ones.

    The Rainbow: A promise from God to not destroy the earth.

    No wonder that the lascivious and licentious want both flagrantly pushed in God’s face. That’s what the blasphemous do.

    Be that as it may, The Church came out of a society like the one being built by LGBT’s and their “legion” of supporters and advocates.

    The Church will survive this one too.

  • 70% of Americans are Christians?

    You need to get some stalks of wheat and separate the wheat from the chaff.

    5% at best!

    Time to get smart Ben!

    And, for the record, there may be some homosexuals NOT in the chaff.


  • Not only a bad analogy Larry, it’s actually idiocy. Or worse.

    Being born in whatever race, is not comparable to sexual behavior and sins. Racist people are in the same sin category as people that engage in homosexuality.

    What YOU are demanding is that Christians submit to the world and its ways and reject the Gospel of Christ.

    You will have to build many more prisons if you think God is going to allow your kind to redefine what a follower of Christ has to do and has to be.

    If you had even a shred of honesty in your character, you would support Christians that hold to the teachings of marriage as they are immutably defined as from the very mouth of Christ Jesus to every other voice in the New Testament.

    Plainly sir, YOU are the bigot in every post you type out. You are an anti-Christ.

    Now both things, you have the right to be. But to allow you to throw rocks when you dwell in a dirty glass house is something no honest person should allow you to do. Hence my posts…

  • Oh, I forgot. You are one of the 5% of the true Christians. How could I possibly forget that startling fact!

  • No you didn’t say that. What you said is that society is so degraded that they would accept gay marriage. But that’s because you see gay people as degraded; you made that abundantly clear.

    It’s not that society has been degraded, or morality is been degraded, or marriage has been degraded, that accounts for the reason that gay marriage is been accepted.

    The obvious reason is, well, obvious. Gay people are no longer seen as the inferiors of any heterosexual. Therefore, our lives are no longer seen as inferior to those of any heterosexual. Oh, there are still people like you, and BB, and BQRQ you are still willing to See us as your moral, legal, cultural, social, and religious interiors.

    But the rest of society, the people not blinded by the religious belief, had for the last 20 or 30 years begun to see us as their equales, with lives that are every bit as important as yours.

    And there I say that you don’t like that little fact one bit?

  • Actually, Jack, I think it does take us somewhere on the actual issue itself. I’m not trying to find “find the bigot.” Bigotry is there for everyone to see. People keep claiming that this is about sincere religious belief, when it is obviously about nothing of the sort. It is not about religious freedom, but about using one’s “sincere religious belief” as a cover for bigotry in the public square, and obviously, and especially in this case, it is about nothing of the sort. I’m not demanding that this lady lives the perfect Christian life; obviously she is not doing so. And I frankly don’t care. It is not my job – and certainly not hers.

    But she is demanding that I live the perfect Christian life, at least in this one aspect. she is claiming Christian exceptionalism as a justification for refusing to do her job, and for harming innocent other you say, pardon my cynicism.

  • I can think of several reasons you’d likely lose that case, and none of them involve the government forcing you to support “gay.”

  • “Atheism is a make-believe system that is based on the mythology that we are masters of our fate, captains of our destiny.”

    even you believe we are captains of our destiny. After all, we have free will, and are free to accept or reject Jesus.

    But of course, it isn’t exactly true. so much of life is simply out of our control. But to the extent it is true, I don’t believe it because I am an atheist, but because I have seen nothing else in my 65 years.

    My late gay brother made so many choices in his life that were bad simply because he had been very carefully taught to hate and devalue himself. His life ended very badly. I, on the other hand, never bought that nonsense, and I have had a great life. Has everything been ab-fab? Absolutely not. But I have still had a great life, and I am grateful for it.

    Atheism doesn’t require magical thinking, any more than theism does. I don’t worry about the origins of the universe. That it exists is simply enough for me.

  • There are no religious freedom concerns on this subject for anything outside of a church. Discrimination in public accommodations and government offices is not excusable behavior whether it be based on personal animus or religious ones. Claiming you have a right under religious freedom to attack the rights of others is an abuse of the term.

    This is coming from people with no regard for 1st Amendment freedoms of others. People who never understood or appreciated what religious freedom meant. The crowd who claim separation of church and state is a myth and free exercise of religion only applies to their own faith. [As exemplified by nonsense claims by JR, Greg1, and a host of others on numerous occasions]

  • So who is the one supporting discrimination under color of law? Not I.

    When did this nation see such behavior before? Hmmm think back for a moment. 🙂

    BB, I don’t give a flying crap what you think God has to say on the subject of our civil laws and society. I don’t have to. I am only demanding that we live in a free society. Something your religion seems to consider dangerous. Thanks to a real understanding of religious freedom, I can be assured you can never make me care.

  • Feel free to ignore the current news of the nation. Why should I expect honest and informed discussion.

    ” There’s an obvious difference between refusing to serve a customer, period, and declining a specific request by a customer.”

    This is why a baker in Oregon got fined and one in Colorado had their suit dismissed. What is being supported here by the anti-gay crowd and various mini RFRA laws is a right to refuse serving a customer. If they were claiming “special requests” they would not be running afoul of anti-discrimination laws. Facts are not in your favor here.

  • See the link below for the full text (@ July 9, 2015 at 3:38 pm). I tried a cut and paste but it got mangled and couldn’t squeeze in the citation.

    Paste fail on my part. 🙂

  • It depends on whether you’re using a four-times-divorced opponent of gay marriage as an argument for gay marriage. If so, that’s the classic ad hominem logical fallacy — the assumption that we can undermine the message by finding fault with the messenger.

    But if you’re simply noting the hypocrisy, fair enough. My only point is that it doesn’t get us anywhere, other than to say that human beings are often guilty of jaw-dropping hypocrisy (and a lack of any sense of irony)…..which, while certainly true, is so obvious as to hardly be worth repeating (although we all can’t resist the temptation to repeat it when going after those who disagree with us.)

  • Well, Ben, that leads to the obvious question of how many dominionists there really are.

    And the answer is, if we adhere to our agreed-upon definition, very few. You’ll find a few within the far-out fringes of ultra-Reformed postmillennial Christian theology, but that’s it.

    The vast majority of American evangelicals are dispensationalists, which is the polar opposite to Reformed theology. Rather than wanting to take over the country politically and impose Old Testament law, they believe that such law is from the Mosaic dispensation which they believe expired at Calvary. Moreover, until the Supreme Court began its long modern string of bone-headed rulings on issues like school prayer and abortion, these folks were overwhelmingly apolitical….and many still are.

    Put another way, the big problem with evangelicals in this country is not their supporting dominionism but the opposite extreme. They can’t seem to get off their behinds and vote on Election Day.

  • Well, jack, you are seeing what you want to see. Every single anti-gay organization that demands that there particular in peculiar versions of what God wants to be reflected in civil law is a Dominion is to organization . As always, it is a matter of whose on is getting gored.

    BTW, you might want to look at BQRQ’s latest posting. That apology lasted about 30 seconds.

  • “As for your statement, “God was never in the Declaration of Independence,” I hope for your sake that you’re joking: What do you think “Creator” means, as in “endowed by our Creator?”

    Jack, you forget that Larry’s has already explained that one. A supernatural boogeyman named David Barton fabricated that phrase and caused ti magically to appear in the Declaration of Independence under glass at the National Archives rotunda in DC as well as in every US history book in existence. Pretty amazing, huh?

  • “What really bothers many gay people, I think, is the gnawing feeling that no matter who they silence or how many victories they achieve, they are not likely to find the peace and acceptance they crave. That peace will come only through Christ. And therein lies the need to destroy the church’s opposition to their lifestyle. At least that’s my opinion.”

    That is my opinion, as well. 100%. Thank you.

  • And of course, Shawnie, this is exactly what proves to anyone with a brain that you are just as prejudiced against gay people as all of the rest of our resident homobigots. You are just better spoken and far more intelligent.

    It is simply impossible for you to believe that the vast majority of gay people are perfectly happy living authentically as they are made. and if they are not, then it is for reasons having nothing to do with sexuality, and everything to do with 2000 years of hatred and prejudice dressed up in its finest sunday go to meetin’ drag.

    Peace? I have great peace in my life, even with 45 years of activism against antigay bigotry. Acceptance? I’m not looking for acceptance form people with prejudice. That’s just another way of saying its all about you. It isn’t, except in your own mind.

    no one cares about the church’s opposition, except when they try to impose their beliefs through force of civil law. You are simply not as important as you think you are.

  • There may even be some homosexual despising and hating Christians who are not in the chaff.

    but I doubt it.

  • @jack

    I’m not using her four marriages as an argument for gay marriage, and you know that.

    I’m using her four marriages as an argument that this is not about her sincere religious beliefs at all, or at least what she claims are her sincere religious beliefs, cherry picked as an excuse to do what she would be doing without those sincere religious beliefs.

    she is claiming that her religious beliefs exempt her from doing her job, which is filling out forms, not deciding matters of law. As I always say, it is so very telling that these religious beliefs only seem to pop up when it requires someone to behave decently, amicably, and WITHOUT PREJUDICE towards gay people.

  • “It is simply impossible for you to believe that the vast majority of gay people are perfectly happy living authentically as they are made”

    It isn’t hard for me to believe at all. I’m sure many are. But obviously many are not, because having already achieved what they all said they wanted–civil marriage equality as well as broad popular support–they are as angry as ever and still religious discussion forums with invective even where the matter is purely intra-church and does not affect them at all. And you, Ben, have been frequently among them.

  • “…still SWARM religious discussion forums…” Backspaced too far.

    But Ben, I’ll believe we’re not important to you when I see as much militant gay and/or atheist invective on Christian forums as I see militant Christianity on predominantly gay/atheist forums — which is virtually none. You speak of “great peace” in one breath, but in the next will bloviate that “I will rejoice in your weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.” I’m not sure whose gnashing you were speaking of, because I certainly witnessed none the weekend of the SCOTUS decision, but in any case those are decidedly NOT the words of a happy person.

  • No Shawnie, I don’t agree. This is an over, not by a longshot. And you know it. There is still too much power to be accrued and too much money to be made in the anti-gay industry.

    Now we have to deal with the phony religious freedom arguments. No matter how you slice it, you still want the right to discriminate on the basis of religious belief.. I know you don’t think they’re phony, but I sure do. ” i’m a poor persecuted Christian!” “I don’t have to do my job because I’m a conservative Christian!” ” those mean gay people are in my imagination doing to me what I was always doing to them in reality!”

    I don’t agree with you about my “invective”, either. I will say what I think, and I address prejudice without pussyfooting. In any case, my alleged invective is nothing compared to the people who routinely call me a threat to everything that is good and holy, who think that I ought to be killed, and who are willing to say that I am destructive to society, family in…

  • “weeping, willing, and gnashing” actually was put out a couple of weeks ago, not the next comment after I talked about the peace in my life. But I know what you meant.

    And in any case, I do feel that way, both peaceful and enjoying watching a schadenfreude drenching as the prejudice, hate, and despite get a major comeuppance from the law, the state, society in general, and faith communities.

    Then there is this. You and your fellow travelers have routinely called me and mine disgusting, perverted, dangerous, antagonistic, hateful, sick, a threat, a danger to children, family, marriage, faith, freedom, and Western civilization. I won’t ask for your permission OR pardon for enjoying it when a good portion of society repudiates the prejudice, hatred and bigotry that has informed anti-gay Christian sentiment for 2000 years. Because that’s what it is. Just bigotry.

    Hate and lies are strong, but love and truth are stronger. That’s why you are losing in the court of public…

  • A highly descriptive and verbose apologia, which nonetheless completely negates your original protestations about how unimportant our opinions are to you. Most of what you post is evidence of the probable truth of Todd’s suppositions, rather than the reverse, although you are at least a bit more polite about it than some others here.

  • Shawnee, this is why I rarely bother replying to you anymore. You have your way of seeing things, and despite your obvious intelligence and scholarship, nothing will ever disturb that particular point of view. That’s what happens when you believe you speak for God, and self-righteousness binds and blinds your intellect.

    Yes, your opinions are unimportant to me. No, your willingness to use political power to enforce your political opinions on my life make you like the hydra.

    And that is why this battle is over. We’re still going to have to deal with these phony religious freedom claims, we’re still going to have to try to pass ENDA in order to cut one more head off of this particular snake , and we’re going to have to be extra vigilant for the next 20 or 30 years.

    I’m sure you’re going to continue to believe Todd, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. And despite is the keyword here. As I often say, not all bigotry is hate.

  • As I have often said, shawnie:

    This is the conclusion I reached long ago: we are NEVER going to reach those who are irretrievably poisoned by hate, fear, ignorance, stupidity, despite (most of you), personal issues, wholly imaginary superiority, toxic religious belief (most of you), mental illness, bad parenting, prejudice, a traumatizing event, lust for power and money at the expense of other people, self hatred, paranoia, or right wing ideology.

    Not now. Not ever. That’s the very definition of “irretrievably.” I’ll occasionally bother to respond for my own amusement or edification, or because I know there are people reading who might be swayed by the contrast between reason and dripping fangs.

    But not because I ever expect the irretrievably poisoned to get it, much less to change.

  • No you can’t sue the school (well you can….you can sue anyone for anything…it’s winning thats the hard part) but let me put it this way….a rainbow fish is no more an overt symbol of gay pride than the rainbow line-up of crayons in a box from Crayola.

    Really the only Rainbow Symbol that is Truly identified with the Gay Minority is the Six Color Flag….

  • Sounds like he is a “Voyeur with Voyeuristic Intentions” (to quote from Rocky Horror Picture Show)…I bet when he dies the VHS and DVD Collection the family finds fills the Gayrage….

  • Actually thats “From Another Dimension…With Voyeuristic Intention……

    Need to keep my Lyrics straight….

    Ooooooohhhhhh!!!!! BAD PUN..BAD…..

  • Because they weren’t talking about any God. They were being as vague as possible to be inclusive of all faiths and even none at all.

    The word “God” is not in the Declaration of Independence as I said. “Creator” is as unspecific as one can get, penned by a man with no taste for sectarian Christan antics. In the days before science could come up with ideas like “The Big Bang” or ideas about the formation of the earth, “Creator” would not have a specific connotation to religious belief beyond what was personally imputed to it. A Rorshack test for people to pin their own beliefs onto.

    In Jack’s case he was referring to his own belief in a Christian God.

  • Oh moonshine, Larry. The “Creator” of Jefferson’s Declaration is the same “Almighty God” of his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:

    Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do..Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship…nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief…and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

  • BTW, I’m glad to see that you’ve at least repudiated your previous assertion about the “endowed by their Creator” language having been magically fabricated by David Barton. That was a real stinker of an argument, y’know.

  • There is an established culture of teen molestation and conversion within the gay community. I have witnessed it firsthand during my years in the theatre. There are established names gays use to refer to young teens they’d like to have, i.e. “chickens”, “twinks”, etc. While all gays do not participate in this, it is openly spoken about and joked about in the general gay population and is the most popular form of gay pornography. While there are child molesters among straights, it is not an openly accepted topic of conversation nor is it casually joked about. It is condemned by the overwhelming majority of straights…such condemnation does not exist in the gay community although gay activists try to convince the rest of us that it does so that we will not see them as a threat.

  • Exactly. This is the main reason to voice opposition. I don’t care a whit about baking gay wedding cakes but I care a great deal about our children and what they will be taught in public schools. Children are malleable, they are like little aliens whose work is to discover the natural world and how it works. How cruel it is to confuse them and pervert that discovery by teaching them that the unnatural is just as healthy as the natural. It is not. Put simply, the parts don’t fit and when one tries to force them to the result is damage, disease and ill health, both physically and mentally. Gays die younger and live with multiple diseases of which HIV/AIDS is only one. We would never encourage kids to smoke knowing that it is likely to cause cancer yet we are now going to teach them that being gay is perfectly fine? We are cowardly, irresponsible adults who are more concerned with being hip and p.c. than protecting our own children and we will pay a dear price for this.