Honorable mention: The most popular line on conservative Twitter this morning was written not by a professional pundit, but by Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent. We’ll let Glenn Beck share this one:
“We should start calling this law SCOTUS Care,” Justice Scalia
And those are just the highlights. Conservatives have made a whole host of insane predictions about what will befall America if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide (think Eiffel tower marriage). Never mind that none of these things have happened in any of the 37 states where gay and lesbian couples can already get married. Just you wait!
“When you elevate a lifestyle to the status of a civil right, I don’t think a lot of believers fully understand or comprehend that once it’s risen to that level and our government accepts it, then anyone who disagrees with it could be at least civilly liable, but more than likely would be criminally liable,” Huckabee warned.
Huckabee also stated that the gay rights movement “won’t stop until there are no more churches, until there are no more people who are spreading the Gospel.” According to Huckabee, gay marriage will lead to “the criminalization of Christianity” and “criminal charges” against pastors who preach against it or refuse to officiate the wedding of a gay couple. Another GOP presidential candidate, Ted Cruz, also predicted that “Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages” or “speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage” will be punished for committing “hate speech.”
Of course, no such thing has ever happened in any of the 37 states that already have marriage equality, but Religious Right activists are insistent that gay marriage will lead to pastors being hauled off to jail en masse for breaking non-existent hate speech laws.
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, a hero of the anti-gay movement, said a pro-gay-marriage decision should be treated just like Plessy v. Ferguson and widely ignored; pastor Jim Garlow, who was instrumental in the passage of Proposition 8 in California, said that anti-gay activists will soon “become an underground resistance movement”; Lane warned of the imposition of “homosexual fascism”; and Pat Buchanan wondered about the possibility of “massive civil disobedience” similar to what “there was against segregation.” Alan Keyes said that the church must defy gay marriage in the same way a Nazi-era German citizen had to resist orders to work in the death camps.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins hasconsistentlywarnedof an anti-gay “revolution” if the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage, a feeling shared by his right-wing allies Mat Staver and Matt Barber, both of the conservative legal group Liberty Counsel.
“This is the thing that revolutions literally are made of,” Staver said. “This would be more devastating to our freedom, to our religious freedom, to the rights of pastors and their duty to be able to speak and to Christians around the country, then anything that the revolutionaries during the American Revolution even dreamed of facing. This would be the thing that revolutions are made of. This could split the country right in two. This could cause another civil war.”
Keyes, writing in WorldNetDaily, called a gay marriage ruling a “ just cause for war.” Such a decision would be no different from “the Dred Scott decision that heralded the onset of the fist Civil War,” Keyes wrote, as it would “bring the nation to the brink” and represent “a high crime and misdemeanor that effectively dissolves the just bonds of government between and among the states, and among the individuals who compose the people of the United States.” Such a ruling, he warned, “is likely to produce the separation and dissolution of the United States.”
“Will a U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring ‘same-sex marriage’ a ‘right’ warrant secession by some state willing and eager to reclaim America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and foundation?” Farah asked. “Is there one state in 50 that would not only defy the coming abomination, but secede in response? The rewards could be great. I would certainly consider relocating. How about you?”
He added: “If not a state, are there any nations in the world interested in a pilgrimage by millions of Americans?”
Seeing that Religious Right activists regularly call gay rights activists terrorists, Al Qaeda and ISIS members, fascists, Nazis, and the ones who are to blame for the Holocaust, it comes as no surprise that several activists have warned of an impending holocaust of American Christians if gays and lesbians can get married nationwide.
Not to be outdone, Keyes has claimed that gay marriage is part of a communist plot that paves the way for “the murder of the masses.”
6) Child endangerment
The civil disobedience pledge signed by Huckabee, Santorum and dozens of Religious Right leaders includes a stern warning that “authorizing the legal equivalency of marriage to same-sex couples undermines the fundamental rights of children and threatens their security, stability, and future,” a theme frequently repeated by anti-gay conservatives.
Santorum said that if he is elected president, he will flout the court’s ruling in order to “protect children.” Garlow, the California pastor, said that gay marriage will “be profoundly destructive, profoundly harming” to children, who he says will bear the brunt of “the catastrophic consequences, the pain, the suffering inflicted on the human race by this redefinition of marriage.” David Barton, a right-wing pseudo-historian, claimed that gay marriage will legalize pedophilia .
Mike Huckabee has warned that gay marriage will unleash divine punishment on America. While he didn’t get into specifics, others on the Right have been happy to describe in detail the divine ramifications of gay marriage.
Bryan Fischer, the American Family Radio host, said that God will use groups such as ISIS — or as he calls them, “the pagan armies of Allah” — to punish the U.S. for gay rights. Others claim that America is already being punished for gay marriage in the form of the Californiadrought.
Yesterday, Mike Huckabee chatted with Iowa radio host Steve Deace and Religious Right organizer Bob Vander Plaats, who led Huckabee’s 2008 campaign in the first-in-the-nation caucus state, about the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on gay marriage.
He said that if elected president, he would simply ignore any Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality until Congress passed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide…which he would then veto.
“Until the Congress of the United States puts on my desk a bill that basically defies the laws of Nature and Nature’s God and defies the longstanding tradition of marriage, the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriage because there is no law that requires it and that would be true for the military and it would be true for all federal institutions,” Huckabee said. “If the Congress decides that they want to pass enabling legislation, they could put it on my desk and I would veto it, and they can attempt to override it. That’s the process.”
Huckabee said that even his detractors should sympathize with his anti-gay-marriage stance: “If liberals were subjected to a conservative court that forced them to tithe their income to scripture or forced them to go to church or forced them to believe something that they don’t want to believe, they would say, ‘We can’t do that, that would go against our conscience.’ And I would say, ‘You are exactly right and we can’t have such a ruling. This is why I find this very unsettling is because liberals will rue the day when the sword they use to enact their agenda is the sword of the court rather than to do it by way of the people’s elected representatives.”
Of course, legalizing gay marriage won’t force opponents like Huckabee to marry someone of the same sex or officiate a same-sex couple’s wedding.
“There can be no surrender on the point of the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage,” Huckabee said, claiming that the ruling “goes to the heart of who we are as Americans and whether or not religious liberty lives or dies.”
He vowed not to “surrender to a tyranny that frankly would defy everything we are as a country,” lamenting that even people who went to law school have decided to “acquiesce to this judicial supremacy.”
Huckabee, who recently issued a letter pledging to fight gay marriage, told Starnes that conservatives should wage “civil disobedience” against a government that “acted outside of nature and nature’s God, outside of the bounds of the law, outside of the bounds of the Constitution,” warning that otherwise they will be forced to commit “biblical disobedience.”
“What if no one had acted in disobedience to the Dred Scott decision of 1857?” Huckabee continued. “What if the entire country had capitulated to judicial tyranny and we just said that because the Supreme Court said in 1857 said that a black person wasn’t fully human? Suppose we had accepted that, suppose Abraham Lincoln, our president, had accepted that, would that have been the right course of action?”
Calling a potential gay marriage ruling patently unconstitutional, Huckabee said that “if we’re not going to follow our Constitution, maybe we should loan it to some developing country so that they could try it out if we’re not going to use it anymore.”
Yesterday, Mike Huckabee sent a letter to Religious Right leaders [PDF] warning that a ruling in favor of marriage equality from the Supreme Court would be just as “backwards” and “broken” as rulings which “rationalized the destruction of human life, defined African Americans as property and justified Japanese-American internment camps.”
“I refuse to sit silently as politically driven interest groups threaten the foundation of religious liberty, criminalize Christianity, and demand that Americans abandon Biblical principles of natural marriage,” Huckabee continued. “I will fight to defend religious liberty at all costs.”
The GOP presidential candidate and former governor added that he will never worship the “false god” of the judiciary: “I also refuse to surrender to the false god of judicial supremacy, which would allow black-robed and unelected judges the power to make law and enforce it, which upends the separation of powers so very central to our Constitution. Too much power concentrated in the courts is a threat to our Republic. I will fight judicial tyranny and return power to the people.”
Dear conservative leaders and pro-family activists,
I share your concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. As you mentioned, any decision that redefines the institution of marriage, which has existed for thousands and thousands of years, would overturn the will of American citizens in more than 30 states who have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Under the U.S. Constitution, we have three, co-equal branches of government. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Branch, and it is certainly not the Supreme Being. Throughout our nation’s history, the court has delivered backwards, broken rulings. These nine, unelected Supreme Court justices have rationalized the destruction of human life, defined African Americans as property and justified Japanese-American internment camps.
The notion that the Supreme Court is an exclusive entity empowered to interpret the Constitution is a modern myth, which has flourished since the 1960s. I reject this idea as just another flawed, failed feature of big government, inconsistent with what our founders fought a revolution to establish.
As both an American and a candidate for president, I will never forget who I serve: my God, my country, and the U.S. Constitution.
I refuse to sit silently as politically driven interest groups threaten the foundation of religious liberty, criminalize Christianity, and demand that Americans abandon Biblical principles of natural marriage. I will fight to defend religious liberty at all costs.
I also refuse to surrender to the false god of judicial supremacy, which would allow black-robed and unelected judges the power to make law and enforce it, which upends the separation of powers so very central to our Constitution. Too much power concentrated in the courts is a threat to our Republic. I will fight judicial tyranny and return power to the people.
I call on all GOP candidates to join me in this fight to defend the Constitution. If you lack the backbone to reject judicial tyranny and fight for religious liberty, you have no business serving our nation as President of the United States.
Governor Mike Huckabee
cc: Cathy Adams - President, Eagle Forum
Kerby Anderson - Host, Point of View radio talk show
David Lane, the Religious Right political organizer with deep ties to the Republican Party and a long record of extremist statements, is out with a warning about the upcoming Supreme Court case on marriage equality, warning in Charisma magazine yesterday that “the law has been drained of all truth by judicial secularists and relativists.” The Supreme Court’s rulings on church-state separation, Lane said, have “guaranteed the spiritual collapse of America.” Now, he warns, the Supreme Court is going to intensify “the threat posed by militant homosexuals.”
Lane said that “homosexual activists” are moving from “libertarianism” to “totalitarianism” and ultimately to “homosexual fascism.”
“Spiritual blindness permeates this once Christian people who now cannot recognize that the murder of 55 million babies in their mother’s womb, red ink as far as the eye can see, homosexuals praying at the Inauguration, and ISIS camped eight miles from the U.S. Border in Mexico portends the coming judgment of God,” Lane said. “Homosexual intercourse and homosexual marriage are merely the characteristic marks of a decadent society. Caitlin [sic] Jenner is simply the latest role model ‘showcased’ for our children to emulate, sanctioned by public education, higher learning, the main street media and Hollywood. Secularists are dismantling America brick-by-brick.”
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the homosexual marriage case on June 29. A pro-homosexual marriage opinion by the Justices will be an easy decision to disobey for Christians. The choice is obedience to Christ or obedience to the state.
Since the law has been drained of all truth by judicial secularists and relativists, what is good and what is evil are apparently determined by whatever five Supreme Court Justices can agree to on any given day.
Secularist values are not only different from, but also sharply antithetical to Christianity. The Justices' removal of the Bible from public schools in 1963—the fixed point in order to structure and judge society for 350 years—guaranteed the spiritual collapse of America.
This seems to be as good a time as any to speak of the threat posed by militant homosexuals. Homosexual activists once demanded libertarianism: "Grant us the right to live our lives in the privacy of our homes." Now, they have transitioned into totalitarianism: "Christian bakers, florists and photographers must take part in our homosexual weddings or be destroyed and bankrupted." But what comes next is homosexual fascism: "The followers of Jesus are going to celebrate and applaud same-sex marriage or spend time in jail."
Spiritual blindness permeates this once Christian people who now cannot recognize that the murder of 55 million babies in their mother's womb, red ink as far as the eye can see, homosexuals praying at the Inauguration, and ISIS camped eight miles from the U.S. Border in Mexico portends the coming judgment of God. Homosexual intercourse and homosexual marriage are merely the characteristic marks of a decadent society. Caitlin Jenner is simply the latest role model "showcased" for our children to emulate, sanctioned by public education, higher learning, the main street media and Hollywood. Secularists are dismantling America brick-by-brick.
We need a Gideon or Rahab the Harlot to make a stand.
This past Saturday, Phyllis Schlafly hosted former House GOP Majority Leader Tom DeLay on “Eagle Forum Live” to discuss the alleged threat of gay marriage. Schlafly segued into the topic of gay marriage by describing an open letter to the SupremeCourt, signed by conservative pastors and politicians, pledging to defy any Court decision which strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage.
DeLay lamented that “people don’t understand the constitution. We haven’t taught our children now for three or four generations what the Constitution is, and the separation of powers, and what our Founding Fathers had in mind as this brilliant understanding of how you can limit government and limit the tyranny put on us through people or oligarchies.”
Because of this supposed constitutional ignorance, DeLay claimed, “right now, the American people don’t understand that the Supreme Court, when it makes a ruling, it’s just an opinion if no one enforces that ruling. The Supreme Court doesn’t have a police force; the Supreme Court doesn’t have an army; the Supreme Court doesn’t have people that can enforce their ruling.” Therefore, if conservatives “stand up to them and invoke the Constitution, then we don’t have to accept a ruling on marriage that redefines marriage. And that’s basically what this ad is all about. We’re sending a message to the Supreme Court that, number one, it’s illegal that they have this case before them; it’s not in their jurisdiction.”
Proving his Constitutional prowess, DeLay argued that “it’s not in their authority to write law by ten unelected, unaccountable people, lawyers, and if – this is a red line that we’re drawing. If they rule against marriage, we will all defy them.”
Further along in the show, a caller, responding to the overreach of the Supreme Court, noted that “civil rights laws, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Virginia v. Loving [sic], were put on us by courts legislating from the bench and presidential executive orders. And back then even one-third of the black people did not want integration. And Governor George Wallace warned about the tyranny now happening under the Obama administration.”
Responding to this lecture, Schlafly observed, “Well, lots of mistakes have been made along those lines.”
DeLay concluded his time on Schlafly’s show by commentating on the “danger” of the potential imposition of martial law by pointing to the stand-off at Bundy Ranch in April 2015, where Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy refused to pay grazing fees for using federal land. “He stood up to them and backed them down,” DeLay said.
Although the case hasn’t gotten as much mainstream press attention as the forthcoming blockbuster rulings on marriage and on the ACA, the Supreme Court will be issuing a crucial decision on fair housing in the next few weeks in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project. A bad decision would reverse decades of positive decisions and progress in fair housing.
As our nation learned during the riots of the 1960s, and is tragically re-learning today, segregation in housing is both a major cause and effect of our urban problems and inequality. Partly in response, Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act in 1968, with the explicit purpose to “provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States.” For almost four decades, every appellate court that has considered the issue and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under both Republican and Democratic administrations have interpreted the Act to prohibit conduct that has a discriminatory effect based on race, color, religion, gender, disability, or familial status without a good justification. The issue in Texas Department is whether the Court will overturn that standard and rule that you don’t have a case under the Fair Housing Act unless you can prove specific intent to discriminate.
Why is this important? On a practical level, requiring proof of intent will make fair housing enforcement much more difficult; as one court noted, “clever men may easily conceal their motivations.” More broadly, discrimination and segregation often result from policies that may not be motivated by specific bad intent but that build on historic and systemic patterns of discrimination and lock out racial and other minorities. The “disparate impact” test, which is the legal term for the standard based on unjustified discriminatory effects, has helped combat that problem.
For example, in one case a building policy that imposed a limit of two people per bedroom resulted in the effective eviction from a one-bedroom apartment of a young couple who had just had a child. The policy was challenged based on disparate impact. It turned out there was no good business justification for the policy, and 150 units were opened up for families with children as a result. Similar challenges to policies that excluded disabled veterans by requiring residents to have full-time jobs or zoning restrictions that excluded racial minorities by requiring large lot sizes have helped break down long-entrenched problems of discrimination and exclusion.
All eleven federal courts of appeal that have considered this issue since the 1970s have approved the disparate impact standard. As explained in a brief to the Supreme Court by former Republican and Democratic HUD appointees, HUD has also followed this standard for decades. As a former HUD official and career-long civil rights attorney, I know the importance of the disparate impact test. As I wrote in a law review article more than 35 years ago, “only by concentrating on effect can the issue of discrimination be realistically addressed at all.”
If the Supreme Court overturns the long-accepted disparate impact standard, the continuing problems of discrimination and segregation in our country will only get worse in the years to come. The outcome of this case will have an enormous impact on millions of people throughout America, and on the nature of who we are as a nation.
Tom DeLay, the former Republican House majority leader, is still waiting for a massive revolt if the Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans, telling Steve Malzberg of Newsmax yesterday that “all hell is going to break loose” if the court makes such a decision.
DeLay said that anyone who “understands the Constitution” knows that the legislative and executive branches do not need to enforce a Supreme Court ruling, “and not only that, if the states would just invoke the 10th Amendment and assert their sovereignty, they could defy a ruling by the Supreme Court.”
“If this Supreme Court rules against marriage, all hell is going to break loose,” DeLay said, citing a pledge signed by politicians and activists, including Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, who have vow to defy such a ruling by the court. “We’re going to stand for marriage even if it takes civil disobedience.”
Yesterday, in a speech in Texas on the importance of voting rights, Hillary Clinton made one of the most important remarks of her campaign so far: "We need a Supreme Court who cares more about the right to vote of a person than the right to buy an election of a corporation."
WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah issued an emergency plea to governors today asking them to consider seceding from the union if the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage.
“We need a Promised Land. We need an Exodus strategy,” Farah wrote. “Are there any governors or legislatures out there among the 50 states willing to secede to offer a refuge for the God-fearing?”
If not, Farah says that foreign nations that prohibit same-sex marriage should prepare for “a pilgrimage by millions of Americans” fleeing marriage equality.
Will a U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring “same-sex marriage” a “right” warrant secession by some state willing and eager to reclaim America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and foundation?
You know it’s inevitable, right?
The fix is in. Two members of the Supreme Court have personally officiated at same-sex “marriages.” I count three solid votes against it. The chances of reaching five are somewhere between slim and none.
I’ve heard some chatter about civil disobedience. That’s all well and good. But I don’t see much in the way of serious organization taking place.
What I do see is a lot of grass-roots concern. I know there are millions of Christians, Jews and others who would pull up stakes and move to another country that honored the institution of marriage as it was designed by God – a union between one man and one woman.
As Jesus said it: “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.”
Is there one state in 50 that would not only defy the coming abomination, but secede in response? The rewards could be great. I would certainly consider relocating. How about you?
The founders of this country found a place of refuge in America and shaped it into the greatest self-governing nation in the history of world. Just think what one state could do if it simply stuck to the principles that made this country great? Americans wouldn’t have to cross an ocean to rediscover what brought most of our ancestors here. We could simply drive.
Are any states so inclined?
I haven’t heard this question raised by anyone else. So I’m raising it now. We don’t have much time before the nine high priests in black robes decide to follow Baal instead of the One True God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
We need a Promised Land. We need an Exodus strategy.
If not a state, are there any nations in the world interested in a pilgrimage by millions of Americans?
And here’s the second question: Are there any governors or legislatures out there among the 50 states willing to secede to offer a refuge for the God-fearing?
Former House GOP leader Tom DeLay stopped by Houston talk radio host Sam Malone’s show last week to discuss his efforts to stay active in politics since leaving the House of Representatives in a cloud of corruption accusations, or, as Malone called it, “the persecution of Tom DeLay.”
“The Supreme Court is about to put out a ruling on marriage and they have no jurisdiction to do so, they shouldn’t have even heard this case, they have no right to redefine marriage and hopefully the American people will rise up and really undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court,” DeLay said.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore spoke with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Friday about his belief that states should “resist” a potential Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, saying that Congress and the states should simply defy a court decision they disagree with by stating “that there is no right to redefine marriage” in the U.S. Constitution.
“We have justices on the Supreme Court right now who have actually performed same-sex marriages, Ginsburg and Kagan,” Moore continued. “Congress should do something about this.”
He said that if Justice Ginsburg does not recuse herself from the case, then Congress should commence impeachment proceedings.
“This is undermining the rule of law in our country and ushers in an age of chaos,” Perkins added.
While most of what happens at CNP gatherings is kept behind closed doors, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) was happy to brag that its president, Albert Mohler, had received the 2015 Edwin Meese III Originalism and Religious Liberty Award from the Alliance Defending Freedom on Friday. The award was presented by ADF’s Alan Sears and the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, identified by the SBTS as president of the CNP.
Meese, who played a major role in the rise of the Federalist Society and the right-wing school of constitutional interpretation known as “originalism”— colloquially referred to as “strict constructionism” — was on hand for the event. According to the SBTS account, Meese said originalism and religious liberty “go hand-in-hand” and asserted that “religious liberty is under attack as never before” in America.
That was also the theme of Mohler’s remarks, which took their title, “The Gathering Storm: The Eclipse of Religious Liberty and the Threat of a New Dark Age,” from Winton Churchill’s account of the period leading up to the World War II. “We are not facing the same gathering storm,” Mohler declared, “but we are now facing a battle that will determine the destiny of priceless freedoms and the very foundation of human rights and human dignity.”
Other excerpts from Mohler’s speech:
A revolution in morality now seeks not only to subvert marriage, but also to redefine it, and thus to undermine an essential foundation of human dignity, flourishing, and freedom….
Already, religious liberty is threatened by a new moral regime that exalts erotic liberty and personal autonomy and openly argues that religious liberties must give way to the new morality, its redefinition of marriage, and its demand for coercive moral, cultural, and legal sovereignty.
A new moral and legal order is ascendant in America, and this new order is only possible, in the arena of American law and jurisprudence, if the original intent and the very words of the Constitution of the United States are twisted beyond recognition….
We are in a fight for the most basic liberties God has given humanity, every single one of us, made in his image. Religious liberty is being redefined as mere freedom of worship, but it will not long survive if it is reduced to a private sphere with no public voice. The very freedom to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake, and thus so is the liberty of every American. Human rights and human dignity are temporary abstractions if they are severed from their reality as gifts of the Creator. The eclipse of Christian truth will lead inevitably to a tragic loss of human dignity. If we lose religious liberty, all other liberties will be lost, one by one. I am a Christian, and I believe that salvation is found in no other name than Jesus Christ and in no other gospel, but I will fight for the religious liberty of all.
“We are seeing today profound threats to religious liberty in America, I think the greatest threats we’ve ever seen,” Cruz told conservative author and talk radio host Eric Metaxas.
Cruz said that the fights over “religious freedom” laws in Indiana and Arkansas were “heartbreaking” examples of how the Democratic Party has “gotten so extreme and so radical in its devotion to mandatory gay marriage that they’ve decided there’s no room for the religious liberty protected under the First Amendment.”
He added that while “Democrats joined with big business in vilifying an effort to protect our religious liberty,” too many Republican leaders and presidential candidates “ran and hid in the hills.”
“We’re a nation that was founded by men and women who were fleeing religious oppression and coming to seek out a land where everyone of us could worship God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, and that is under profound jeopardy today,” Cruz said.
Cruz later claimed that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had said during last month’s Supreme Court marriage equality arguments that if marriage equality is legalized nationwide, the IRS will start denying tax-exempt status to churches. (In the exchange Cruz referred to, Verrilli had said nothing of the sort.)
“The next step on this,” he said, “is your church being told it now pays income taxes on the tithes that are given each week, that it is now singled out and discriminated against, that universities like Notre Dame or Georgetown and Brigham Young or any university that is founded as a Christian university, if it continues to follow biblical teachings on marriage, the federal government is asserting the power to discriminate and persecute them.” This led Metaxas to warn of “parallels” to what occured in Nazi Germany.
Metaxas seemed to be pleased with Cruz’s responses, especially compared to his GOP presidential rival Jeb Bush, whom Metaxas criticized for failing to forcefully denounce marriage equality and hiring “top people in his campaign who are very aggressively pro-same-sex-marriage.”
Yesterday on his “Freedom’s Call” radio bulletin, Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver warned that church leaders will soon “face going to jail” if they don’t obey “unjust” and “unconscionable” same-sex marriage laws.
“We’re witnessing an aggressive movement targeting Christianity and our values, especially marriage,” Staver said. “We must realize that the war over marriage goes to the core of our religious freedom.”
Staver, seemingly suggesting — falsely — that churches will have to host same-sex couples’ weddings, urged “all Christians” to request Liberty Counsel’s help against an “onslaught of the radical pro-homosexual community or government agencies pursuing the same goal.”
In an email to Liberty Counsel members today, Staver issued a similar warning, including the discredited claim that “speech against homosexuality” will be criminalized and considered a “hate crime” if the Supreme Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans:
The coercion by the government and radical leftists to force Americans to accept the homosexual lifestyle and its sexual immorality has exploded. If the High Court wrongly affirms same-sex "marriage," the floodgates will be opened for lawsuits and legislation to label speech against homosexuality as a hate crime – and force participation in their events and ceremonies.
John Zmirak, Contributing Senior Editor of The Stream, and an endorser of our Marriage Solidarity Pledge, recently commented on one line of questioning by the Supreme Court Justices, which not only coincides with the warning flags we've been raising, but, in fact, should cause every pastor and church leader in America to take note.
His headline warns… "If the Supreme Court Imposes Same Sex Marriage, You Could Lose Your Church. Obama's Solicitor General admits that the feds will treat orthodox Christians like racists."
"If the court imposes same-sex "marriage," it will be exposing the churches attended by the majority of Americans to sustained legal attack. Does that sound like crazy alarmism? The Solicitor General of the United States agrees with me. Except that he is in favor of it.
"Justice Samuel Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether acceptance of same-sex marriage would subject orthodox Christian churches to the treatment once accorded Bob Jones University, which lost its tax-exempt status because its ban on interracial dating contradicted federal policy. Verrilli seemed a little taken aback, then answered yes, 'it's certainly going to be an issue.'
"In other words, if the Supreme Court votes against natural marriage, it will free up the feds to target organizations you might have heard of, such as the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention... Remember that the Obama administration has already tried to force these same churches to provide abortifacients to their employees. Attacking their tax-exempt status over biblical sexual ethics is peanuts next to that."
John then takes this argument one step further. "If the court hands the Obama administration the bully stick it is requesting, it will be creating a two-tier system of churches in America" — those that 'obey' the Court's interpretation of the Constitution and 'those that don't."
That leads to the logical creation of "registered" and "non-registered" churches, similar to restrictions used in communist countries for churches that toe the party line.
The day after the Supreme Court heard the Obergefell marriage cases, Rafael Cruz spoke to a Republican group in Alvin, Texas, where he made frequent warnings about the supposed threat of legalizing same-sex marriage.
While boasting that his son, Ted Cruz, has introduced two measures in the U.S. Senate to block a Supreme Court marriage equality ruling, Cruz told the audience that “we are going to have to stand firm on the agenda to destroy America.”
“I lost my freedom once, I’m not willing to lose it again. I will die fighting before I lose it again and so should you,” he added.
Cruz said that America is experiencing “a lot of persecution against Christians” and predicted that if the Supreme Court rules to “legalize homosexual marriage…the next thing that is going to come is the government coming to your church and saying ‘you must hire a homosexual pastor, you must perform homosexual marriages.’ We are going to come to a crossroads in America. We’re going to have to decide whether we obey God or we obey government if that’s what’s coming. This is about religious persecution.”
He also falsely claimed that Congress once made the Bible the principal textbook in public schools and alleged that both prayer and the Bible are now “banned in public schools.” (The Supreme Court only barred government-organized prayers).
Cruz blamed the court for a surge in violent crime and the resulting billions of dollars spent by the government to fight it: “Even from an economic standpoint, we’ve invested billions and billions of dollars combating crime that was caused by removing prayer and Bible reading from schools.”
Last week, Matt Barber said that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage would spark a revolution and today, his website BarbWire published a column from Timothy Buchanan similarly predicting that “it would be difficult to see how the wrong decision here will not result in a second American civil war.”
“A ruling by the Supreme Court to overturn bans on same-sex ‘marriage’ that have been properly enacted by the states will be correctly viewed by Christians as an openly belligerent affront to religious liberty, the consequences of which, may be dire,” Buchanan writes. “This case could well be the fuse that ignites the powder keg of outrage that leads the nation into the first battle of a new war. Our future as a nation and indeed, whether we have one, may well depend upon how the Supreme Court decides this case.”
He warns that “Homo-fascists” are seeking “the abolition of religious freedom in America” in order to destroy “those of us who oppose their dangerous and deadly desires.” They will also, he warns, destroy the family unit, leading to violent outbursts like those in Baltimore and Ferguson, which he says were evidence of “the destruction that results from a breakdown in families.”
The Homo-fascists and the Lawless Left have long distorted the central issue, claiming entitlement of a fundamental civil right to seize the status and benefits of marriage. But that’s a gross distortion of the truth.
This case is actually far more serious. There is real potential for the abolition of religious freedom in America. The godless are now attempting to use specious and obscure claims of a Constitutional right-to-do-evil as a bludgeon to smash to dust, the religious freedom of those of us who oppose their dangerous and deadly desires.
There is no right that is being denied to homosexuals and lesbians that requires the invocation of the 14th Amendment. It’s important to remember that what we have here is people who have chosen to be identified by their own depraved behavior, and not by any immutable characteristic.
Moreover, this tiny minority of 2-5% of the U.S. population cannot be permitted to reorder our society according to a corrupt worldview not shared by the rest.
While the reports we read and hear from the media are incomplete and often distorted, there exist some important arguments that seem to have been overlooked. Procreation is not the central or even most important reason that marriage must remain as it has, and to suggest such puts the entire case on a precarious footing.
The safe and healthy upbringing of children into productive and responsible adults is far more important than simple procreation, and, as one who comes from a family that was ripped apart by divorce, it’s one I know all too well.
If children are permitted to be adopted by same-sex couples, generations of brokenness, confusion, misery and sexual abuse will be the certain result. The recent violent events in Baltimore and Ferguson are a screaming witness to the destruction that results from a breakdown in families. Can America afford the family’s total dissolution?
The nobility of the marriage of a man to a woman is a natural, moral and religious truth that has served mankind well for the ages that humans have been walking on the earth. To pollute it at this time in our history would be no less foolish than a man pulling down the roof of his house upon his own head.
Because the United States is so deeply divided over moral and legal fundamentals, it would be difficult to see how the wrong decision here will not result in a second American civil war. A ruling by the Supreme Court to overturn bans on same-sex “marriage” that have been properly enacted by the states will be correctly viewed by Christians as an openly belligerent affront to religious liberty, the consequences of which, may be dire.
This case could well be the fuse that ignites the powder keg of outrage that leads the nation into the first battle of a new war. Our future as a nation and indeed, whether we have one, may well depend upon how the Supreme Court decides this case.
It would be utter foolishness for the Homo-fascists, the Lawless Left and their media mouthpieces to mistake the kindness and peacefulness of the Right as submission or weakness. May God’s will prevail in the United States Supreme Court.
Yesterday on Newsmax TV, Ben Carson said that the federal government does not need to recognize a Supreme Court decision on gay marriage because the president is only obligated to recognize laws passed by Congress, not judicial rulings.
“First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works, the president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch,” Carson said. “So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law.”
He also added that members of the judiciary should have term limits in order to “adjust with the times.”
Carson, who announced his campaign for president on Monday, has previously floated the idea of impeachingjudges who back marriage equality.
During last week’s National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, where Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee made their pitches for the Latino vote, NHCLC head Sam Rodriguez told a TIME reporter that Republicans will not “fight arduously” to overturn a Supreme Court decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage.
Of course, on the very same day Rodriguez announced that he and other NHCLC leaders signed a pledge to commit civil disobedience in defiance of any Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. Rodriguez also told a reporter for the Christian Broadcasting Network that such a ruling would usher in a wave of anti-Christian persecution and possibly hate speech laws banning pastors from quoting the Bible.
He warned that the Supreme Court ruling will decide the fate not only of gay rights but whether parts of the Bible “will be deemed as hate speech” and whether “I will be deemed as a bigot, as an intolerant human being and then we will have laws that will begin to discriminate against me because I am a Christian.”
“This Supreme Court decision carries the potential of initiating a chapter of intolerance towards Christians and bigotry towards Christians in the 21st century,” Rodriguez said.