Judicial Hostility, Churches & Gay Marriage

It's appearing more likely every day that courts in the United States will eventually be telling churches that opposition to homosexuals and gay marriage is no longer allowed. Recent decisions by judges are hostile towards those who believe homosexuality is a sin and such occurrences are becoming all too common. The homosexual push for normalization will not cease until they have total acceptance and all who believe their behavior is wrong are forced to either be silent or to capitulate. This includes churches. Some churches have recognized what is coming and have changed their bylaws to reflect their view that the Bible allows only marriage between one man and one woman in an attempt to stave off lawsuits. Who would have thought the day would come when a church would feel the need to do this?

There have not yet been any lawsuits against churches that I'm aware of but there have been many, many lawsuits against wedding industry businesses. The lawsuits stem from business owners refusing to provide services in support of gay marriages or civil ceremonies. Just last week the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against a wedding photographer who refused to photograph a 'commitment ceremony' due to her Christian convictions that homosexuality is a sin. The business owner, Elaine Huguenin, was ordered by the court to pay $6,637 in attorney's fees to the homosexual couple.

Judge Richard Bosson wrote in the court's decision that, "...the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different." Nothing was said about the homosexual plaintiffs channeling their conduct to leave space for the Huguenins' beliefs.

In another case, a federal judge in Massachusetts is allowing a pastor in the state to be sued by a Ugandan homosexual group for "crimes against humanity." The 'crimes' occurred in 2009 when the defendant, Scott Lively, was in Uganda in 2009 for a conference. At the conference he said the goal of the homosexual movement is "to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity." The lawsuit is based on the Alien Tort Statute, a federal law that allows U.S. courts to hear cases on violations of the law of nations or a U.S. treaty. The Supreme Court recently ruled the statute does not apply to conduct that occurred outside the U.S.

Judge Michael Ponsor is allowing the lawsuit, saying the allegations against Lively were substantive and needed to be adjudicated. Ponsor also wrote in his ruling that Lively "...has allegedly supported and actively participated in worldwide initiatives, with a substantial focus on Uganda, aimed at repressing free expression by LGBTI groups, destroying the organizations that support them, intimidating LGBTI individuals, and even criminalizing the very status of being lesbian or gay."

Scott Lively runs the Holy Grounds coffee-house in Springfield where coffee and Bibles are free and Sunday church services minister to the homeless, drug addicts and others. Ponsor wrote, "Indeed, defendant, according to the amended complaint, is alleged to have maintained what amounts to a kind of 'Homophobia Central' in Springfield." Lively's attorneys wrote in a court filing that the plaintiff is asking the United States to punish one of its citizens, Mr. Lively, for 'crimes against humanity' under an international treaty that the United States has expressly rejected. Judge Ponsor ruled against Lively and will let the case proceed. How is this man still on the bench?

In a case from the United Kingdom, two homosexual men have started a legal challenge to the government's decision to allow religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples. Their stated goal is to get the government to force churches to marry gay couples. One of the men, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, said, "It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognize us. It upsets me because I want it so much - a big lavish ceremony, the whole works."

I do not believe it will be very long before this happens here in the United States. With more and more judges displaying blatant hostility toward Christian beliefs, the homosexual segment of our society will be able to achieve all of their goals by court decree. While the current Supreme Court might not rubber stamp a lower court ruling forcing churches to marry homosexuals, Justices can retire anytime and President Obama would be appointing the replacement. With Hillary Clinton poised to be the candidate to beat in 2016 I don't believe Christians should count on getting any conservatives appointed to the Court in the next decade.

I have always believed it to be inevitable that gays would be allowed to marry and achieve the 'normalcy' they sought. Allowing something does not make it 'normal' but that is a post for another day. The recent court rulings are indicative of the trouble brewing on the horizon for churches. How will churches respond when courts order them to perform gay marriages? The church should take advice from Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock."

They have a much harder time opposing this sort of thing on First Amendment grounds unless they can document clearly in a governing document exactly what their religious or moral code is.

I find it both disappointing and offensive that a church would have to justify to a court what their religious or moral code is based on bylaws, and that a lawyer could even hope to effectively argue in front of a judge that the clear and natural interpretation of scripture should be ignored for any reason. I also worry that the process of creating bylaws may give an evil but clever lawyer a point of leverage on which to launch the next attack on our religious freedom.

The opening words of the First Amendment are quite clear: "Congress shall make no law . . . ", and I find it worrisome that today's lawyers are gutting the clear meaning of each article in the Bill of Rights. A generation from now, when the Constitution has no meaning at all and carries no protection, our children will pay for the destructive action of today's lawyers and activists. I don't know whether it will be Jews, or or gays, or women, or some other group (Christians?), but my expectation is that one of the classic groups that has been targeted before will pay a steep price for today's obliteration of those protections - a price that will overwhelm whatever short term benefits liberals expect to attain from their games.

The point is that when a person or religious organization stands up in court (or in any other legal venue) and expects to have an exemption under some law based their religious or moral code, it's only natural for a governing authority to compel them to make their case. Otherwise, ANYONE can effectively claim a religious exemption from ANYTHING, right?

I'd recommend some research into the interesting case a few years ago involving Catholic Charities, which sought an exemption -- on religious grounds -- from something that the state of California or one of the major cities in California had implemented related to mandating same-sex benefits, insurance coverage for contraceptives, or something like that. Catholic Charities lost their case because they couldn't even demonstrate that they were a religious organization. What's even more bizarre is that the court made the right decision in that case. The basis of the court's decision was that: (1) the organization derived an enormous portion of its revenue from various government agencies; (2) there was no religious element to the programs they funded (i.e., they did not restrict their funding to Catholic works); and (3) there was no religious requirement for the leadership of the organization (I think the court cited the fact that the CFO was Jewish, and various other senior leaders were non-Catholic).

We disagree. My point is that when a man says he has a religious objection to an order from the government, that statement should place the highest existing burden of proof on the government to demonstrate their need to override a basic human right. I should never have to defend a claim that I hold particular religious values in order to protect my rights. Yes, anyone should be able to claim a religious exemption from almost any government compulsion to act.

If any situation justifies strict scrutiny, it’s a governmental attempt to trample First Amendment rights, and such government attempts should fail by definition. Any law attempting to compel action must meet the following two criteria:

1. A compelling governmental interest that can be accomplished without violating explicit constitutional protections, and

2. Narrow tailoring that achieves that goal or interest in the least intrusive manner possible and by the least restrictive means possible.

By definition, a compulsion to violate explicit constitutional protections fails the above criteria, fails strict scrutiny, and is thus unconstitutional. Such governmental demands have no moral legitimacy and may be avoided, evaded, or circumvented by any ethical means.

Here are the real reasons homosexual activists have pushed for same sex marriage. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “normalcy”, marriage in any sense of the word, monogamy, etc. It’s all about revolution. Sorry I don’t have dates or links, I collected these quotes when I was (even) less akamai about needing dates etc.

From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”

“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”

He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”

Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:

“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:

“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”

[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.