Posted on 06/30/2013 7:32:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Today's talk of tolerance and acceptance of gay marriage will soon give way to intolerance and rejection of those who hold a traditional view of marriage.
The next offensive in this culture war will involve wielding government to force individuals to accept the new definition of marriage, falsely invoking analogies to civil rights.
As a prototype, consider the assault on the liberty of Elaine Huguenin, the wedding photographer in New Mexico. In 2006, a couple asked her to photograph their wedding. When she learned the couple were lesbians, she declined, explaining that pursuant to her faith, she only photographed man-woman weddings.
The couple got a different photographer, but they sued Huguenin. In New Mexico, there is no gay marriage. In a recent poll, most New Mexicans said they oppose gay marriage. But the state outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission found Huguenin had broken the law, and ordered her to pay $7,000. Huguenin, with the aide of the pro-bono civil liberties law firm Alliance Defense Fund, has sued and the case is now before state Supreme Court.
Try to live your own life according to traditional values, and the state will come after you, and compel you live according to its values.
Florist Barronelle Stutzman owns Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Wash. A gay man, who was a long-time customer of Arlene's, asked Stutzman to arrange flowers for his wedding. She declined, citing her belief that marriage is a union between a man and woman. Now Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson is coming after Stutzman, saying, in effect, she must participate in this gay wedding.
How does Ferguson justify using the power of the state to impose his morality? "If Ms. Stutzman sells flowers to heterosexual couples," the Seattle Post-Intelligencer quotes Ferguson saying, "she must sell them to same-sex couples."
But obviously Stutzman did sell flowers to same-sex couples, happily - that's why this particular client was a long-time customer. What she refuses to do is participate in a ceremony that the state calls marriage, but which she doesn't consider to be marriage.
This is why the civil rights analogy doesn't work. Hugeinin's case and the Stutzman's case aren't about small businesswomen refusing to serve gay people. They are about businesswomen refusing to endorse the novel definition of marriage.
Now a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has asserted that the only reason to object to gay marriage is to "demean" gay people, expect this offensive in the culture war to escalate.
President Obama promised that he won't try to force churches to administer gay weddings. That's very kind of him. But Obama's contraception mandate has shown us how narrowly he views religious liberty.
Maybe Obama or his successor won't use an executive order to rewrite the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, but government will go after churches all the same. The Cardinal O'Boyle Hall that your parish occasionally rents to outside groups? Better allow gay wedding receptions there or face the wrath of the state.
You're allowed to be religious, of course, but only on the Sabbath. If you dare step into the world of commerce or public service, the government will impose its morality on you.
You see it in Obama's rhetoric: he talks of "freedom of worship" rather than freedom of religion. It's a push to bring to heel all rivals of government. Liberal writer Kevin Drum made it pretty explicit during the contraception mandate debate:
"I'm tired of religious groups operating secular enterprises (hospitals, schools)," he wrote, "hiring people of multiple faiths, serving the general public, taking taxpayer dollars -- and then claiming that deeply held religious beliefs should exempt them from public policy."
The thrust: religious groups should only do religion--they shouldn't feed the poor, clothe the naked, educate the young.
And individuals who adhere to religions? Leave your faith at the church door. The Obama administration has argued in the contraception mandate cases that we lose our freedom of conscience the second we enter into commerce with other people.
The Left has long been the aggressor in the culture war. The crushing power of government has long been their weapon.
Many politically involved writers and advocates concerned with liberty and equality fought to open marriage to gay couples. Now that they've won, here's hoping that those who care about liberty will defend the liberty of cultural conservatives to live their lives according to their faith.
-- Timothy P. Carney is The Washington Examiner's senior political columnist
No they don't.
I'm Catholic and two of my kids are married to noncatholics.
Only for the minority who are grasping for the last strawm which will be removed by the worldlings owned and directed by Satan. And that has now come about through those religionists who have so fully and strongly upheld the Democrat Party through which these laws and court decisions have been put in place.
Now they have lost control and are whining.
Yes someone else had said the same. Seems the Catholic Church has relaxed a lot of their rules, this is just another. May be a Church to Church thing as well, I don’t know.
the STATE is now moving in to tell you what to believe and what to espouse. Welcome to 1984.
Just what "rules" or, better yet what dogma, has the Catholic Church relaxed?
Whoa there, I am not trying to attack the Catholic Church in any way! It has simply been a good many years since I had any occasion to go to one, and when I did, things seem to be a lot more strict. That is all I am saying. I have nothing against the church whatsoever. There was a time you had to convert if you wanted to marry a Catholic person. There was a time when some didn’t recognize divorce and would not perform second marriages. Again, not criticizing, just noting.
Just asked a question, and never inferred anything about “attacking the Catholic Church...” Insofar as the practices you mentioned, some are correct and others not. Example, the Church still does not allow remarried Catholics to partake in Holy Communion and those who marry non-Catholics must agree to raise children in the faith. The real issue, however, is not in practices which may change with interpretation or with promulgations, but in matters of doctrine and dogma. Those never change and cannot. Thanks for the exchange.
Thanks back, I am always willing to learn more, as it interests me, not being a Catholic myself. Glad to hear the doctrine and dogma cannot change!
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.