NOM BLOG

Video: How Does SSM Interfere With Religious Liberty?

 

Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute explains how redefining marriage affects religious liberty.

She says, "Same-sex marriage impacts the religious freedom of individuals and groups in many profound ways. If marriage is redefined to be genderless and people and groups do not accept that, they will be in conflict with the law and subject to legal consequences. This already has occurred in a variety of ways in other states."

22 Comments

  1. Randy E King
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    14th,

    Religion, Race, and Gender is afforded Strict Scrutiny protection under the United States Constitution. Sexual depravity does not even rank an honorable mention.

  2. Randy E King
    Posted June 13, 2012 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    14th,

    If you do not want to be accused of indoctrinating other peoples children into your depravity then maybe you should stop trying to indoctrinate other peoples children into your depravity.

    Just saying! 😉

  3. 14th Amend
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    Randy writes: "I view your depravity as repugnant; my religion views your depravity as an abomination."

    I view your ignorance and bigotry as repugnant. But I'm not trying to change the Constitution to deny your right to be a repugnant bigot. Screw your religion. You don't get to use it as a weapon against others then claim it's off limits for scrutiny or criticism. You want to amend constitutions to deny the rights of gay people to marry claiming that it is necessary to protect your religious freedom. Bulls--t! The inconvenient fact for you is that legalizing same sex marriage doesn't include or require any alteration to the First Amendment. You csn spew you slippery slope, religious liberty rhetoric and fear mongering until you're blue in the face. It can't change this simple fact: gay rights advocates are not trying to alter the wording of constititions to limit to your freedom of religion but you are trying to change the wording of constitutions to limit their freedom to marry. 

  4. Randy E King
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    14th,

    You do not have a constitutional right to corrupt marriage. The 1st Amendment is your enemy and you are trying to get at it by changing the meaning of words - but we are on to you now.

    "If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything." Confucius

  5. Randy E King
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:20 am | Permalink

    What you fail/refuse to understand is that my religion is a weapon and I have a Constitutionally protected right to use it as my conscience dictates.

    "Jesus is My Rock, My Sword, My Shield"

  6. Randy E King
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:28 am | Permalink

    Ephesians 6:17

    "...take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God"

  7. Posted June 14, 2012 at 2:08 am | Permalink

    Ummm, "the laws of nature and nature's God", 14th, if that rings any bells.

    Clearly the views of the Founding Fathers concerning the natural law, and its Author, are in polar opposition to the profoundly anti-Christian (specifically) and anti-religious (in general) world view of the marriage corruption movement.

  8. Posted June 14, 2012 at 3:38 am | Permalink

    I think #52 above sums it up well, 14th.

  9. Posted June 14, 2012 at 3:42 am | Permalink

    14th says:

    "You want to amend constitutions to deny the rights of gay people to marry claiming that it is necessary to protect your religious freedom. "

    This is false.

    Gay people are free to marry, just like anybody else.

    The marriage corruption movement seeks to destroy marriage, in an hysterically ill-advised conception of its own interests.

  10. Albert C. Kliwer
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    This debate has become like the "Tower of Babel". I'd like to know, would any of NOM's " traditional marriage" advocates be objective to teaching children at any age you choose this simple phrase: "Boys like girls, and girls like boys; but once in a while, a boy will like a boy, and a girl will like a girl. And that's okay too." they're answer to this question

  11. Albert C. Kliwer
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    *Their answer to this question will surely indicate if this issue is truly about marriage.

  12. 14th Amend
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    "Gay people are free to marry, just like anybody else."

    "It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all." - Iowa Supreme Court is Varnum v. Brien

  13. Randy E King
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    14th,

    The 1st Amendment is your enemy because not only does it afford Strict Scrutiny protections to those that stand in opposition to your design it also protects their right to speak in opposition to – SCOTUS has already held that speech is not limited to what you say…

  14. Randy E King
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    14th,

    Was that the opinion of one of the Iowa (3) removed from the bench by the people in opposition to their ridiculous assertion, or was it from one of the others targeted for removal in the next election?

  15. Randy E King
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    Albert,

    Public schools should not concern themselves of any ideology what-so-ever. Schools should be a place to learn about language, math, and scientific fact; as opposed to the indoctrination camps your propose.

    Feelings are not quantifiable.

  16. David Argue
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    @woody - 'There is no such thing as a "Christian gene" but we'll still protect the right for people to choose to be Christian.'

    You missed the point that I was trying to make. I was saying that homosexuality was a behavior, and by changing the definition of marriage to be based on a behavior causes the definition itself to fluctuate depending upon the whims of whatever special interest group is making noise at the moment. We don't base marriage on whether a person is a Christain either. Whatever behavior you choose to engage in should not influence the definition of marriage.

  17. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    14th -

    "....the complete context of marriage...."

    There is no context of the definition of marriage. There is context in how others view marriage, but that does not change the definition. The people of Iowa knew this; that 's why they booted those faux judges.

    Marriage IS the union of a man and woman with no sexual orientation requirement (see infra this site the story of the guy with SSA who got married to a woman and is living happily ever after). Go get married like that guy if you want to get married.

  18. OvercameSSA
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Ok, Albert, I'll bite. The issue with the question is that it is phrased using homosexualists terms regarding marriage; i.e., the words "like" and "love" are used, implying that those terms form the essence of marriage.

    The better phrase on which to base your assessment, would separate the the like/love element from marriage, since the essence of marriage is based in the procreative and complementary nature of male and female:

    "Boys like girls and girls like boys; but once in a while, a boy will like a boy, and a girl will like a girl. And that's ok. But if a boy or a girl wants to have babies, then a boy has to marry a girl and a girl has to marry a boy to make sure that the baby has a mommy and a daddy. " There, fixed it.

  19. leehawks
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    One of the Founders, President John Adams said: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

  20. Posted June 14, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    leehawks:

    Thank you so much for that quote.

    It is not only true, it is a completely devastating insight into what has gone so wrong in our nation.

  21. Posted June 14, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    "Boys like girls and girls like boys; but once in a while, a boy will like a boy, and a girl will like a girl. And that's ok. But if a boy or a girl wants to have babies, then a boy has to marry a girl and a girl has to marry a boy to make sure that the baby has a mommy and a daddy. " There, fixed it."

    Zing!

  22. Publius
    Posted June 15, 2012 at 2:32 am | Permalink

    The Iowa court’s analysis of the “total context of marriage” is strikingly at odds with the SCOTUS (see Murphy v. Ramsey and Baker v. Nelson) and the citizens of Iowa.

    The notion that the total context of marriage requires the state to recognize every deeply felt sexual desire by redefining marriage to accommodate it was so novel, so foreign, and so shocking to the citizens of Iowa that they removed every member of their court who was up for a retention vote at their first opportunity.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.