A Princeton law professor has predicted increasing persecution of Catholic teaching on sexuality, amid accusations by a New York scholar that such teaching creates a culture of rape.
In a Jan. 17 email to CNA, Professor Robert George of Princeton University warned of rising oppression against those who oppose a redefinition of marriage.
Such persecution includes an increase in "the use of 'anti-discrimination' laws to violate the freedom of religious institutions and religious individuals to honor their beliefs about marriage and sexual morality,” he said.
44 Comments
Hopefully the Supreme Court will addresss this persecution, and we need new laws against all forms of marriage terrorism.
More hysteria. Federal civil rights laws prevent discrimination against non-Christians. Muslim and Atheist and Pagan couples are allowed to marry. And have churches ever been "oppressed" as a result? Of course not. No one cares if churches want to preach hellfire and damnation against Gay people. We're used to it. None of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the church anyway, they come from government.
Tell that to the churches that have been picketed and vandalized for their religious convictions.
If you only watch the talking heads on the entertainment industrial complex propaganda channels you'll never hear anything about the shredding of our enumerated rights. The longer you watch the more dumb you become.
@Jeanette
"More hysteria"
And yet this is exactly what's happening to people of faith who work in any profession excluding places of worship. The religious or personal conscience and convictions of otherwise good people are what's being violated here.
No one has said you can't practice your religion. But when your religion comes up against laws, law wins. Or do Christians still stone people as required in the Bible?
Um, Teri, the Bill of Rights IS the law.
Professor George is right.
The next battleground is education. The legalization of same sex liaisons as "marriage" using the arguments of Judge Walker would drastically alter what is taught to children in schools, including church schools. If opposition to same sex behavior and marriage is, as frequently alleged and found to by Judge Walker to be an incontestable fact, merely irrational and hateful bigotry, then the state will, under the pressure of aggressive lawfare, be forced to stamp out all such teachings in the schools that the gay lobby objects to. Schools and churches that fail to comply with the dictates of the state wins can then be denied benefits given to those who comply. Those benefits would include tax benefits and accreditation. As Teri reminds us, the law wins. Your religious beliefs could be crudely characterized as advocating stoning, a crude slander against the Torah that is frequently invoked to silence Christians. Unenumerated rights that the founders would be astonished at will be invoked to trump enumerated rights because religion will be declared to be irrational bigotry equivalent to advocating slavery, death by stoning, and, as the New York scholar claimed, rape. This is not a slippery slope so much as it is merely being consistent with the demands of modern liberal philosophy.
We must oppose this modern liberal nonsense while we can.
Um, Barb, the bill of rights tells you your rights. You don't have the right to stone your children for misbehaving, but that is part of the Christian faith as written in the bible. You really need to learn more about practicing your religion.
The Bill of Rights recognizes your immutable and innate rights; they do not tell you what they are.
Nowhere in the Christian Bible does it command you to stone your children for misbehaving, but if you are equating masturbation against same gendered companions with children misbehaving then that says a lot more about you than it does about the faith you slander.
The right of conscience and free exercise thereof was recognized in the Bill of Rights as being the most obvious immutable, innate, and undeniable self evident truth of them all.
Sexual depravity does not even rank an honorable mention.
The first amendment protects the freedom of religion "and the free exercise thereof." So until the view that marriage is between a man and a woman becomes a thought crime equivalent to stoning children, no one should be coerced into acting against that.
"Sexual depravity does not even rank an honorable mention."
In Blackstone’s Commentaries of the Laws of England, it did not rate any honor and even mentioning it was disagreeable:
“I will not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in its very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named.”
@Teri
"No one has said you can't practice your religion. But when your religion comes up against laws, law wins. "
How is religion going against the law? Because one refuses to violate their conscience they are going against the law? Ridiculous. If anything, a law that inhibits ones convictions from public life, that should be considered a direct violation of their First Amendment rights. If someone(businesses owner or otherwise) respectfully refuses service based their convictions, then it should be respected, not challenged. You think it's okay to punish people for affirming their convictions, that's fine, but since you believe it's wrong for people to force their beliefs on others, aren't you doing the same by saying people in the workplace shouldn't affirm their beliefs?
Teriyaki: Christians don't stone people, and never did. It was Christians who got stoned, or jailed. Now, it's the drug addiction crowd who now gets 'stoned'. Some things have changed. The form of punishment has changed, but not punishment itself. For our entire society today (including you as well) follows laws which apply the death penalty in certain cases.
First, learn about Christianity, and then talk, Teriyaki. You don't have a clue.
Readers will note that the SSMers who comment here do wish to set Government against freedom of conscience and against religious liberty. They insist that this is part and parcel of imposing their SSM idea.
Take them at their word: they mean what they said.
Example #1.
Jeanette Exner: "None of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the church anyway, they come from government."
Government, Exner now declares, owns each and every marital relationship. This is what SSMers say when the surface is scratched just a little. Government must takeover the foundational social institution of civil society, they insist, because the supremacy of gay identity politics rules over all other considerations.
Example #2.
Teri Simpkins: "Or do Christians still stone people as required in the Bible? [...] that is part of the Christian faith as written in the bible. You really need to learn more about practicing your religion."
The anti-Christian bigotry is openly displayed because this is an expression of how the SSM campaign teaches its supporters to rely on utter falsehoods. The bigger the lie, the more often it is repeated, the more deeply the SSM "failthful" are driven off the cliff of reality.
SSM is the Specious Substitution for Marriage.
NOM is the National Organization for Marriage.
Readers can decide if they are for the substitution or for the real lthing. Readers can decide if they want the radicalism of Exner and Simpkins to rule over them or if they want to protect freedom of conscience.
Readers:
Please note that the SSMers who comment here do wish to set Government against freedom of conscience and against religious liberty. They insist that this is part and parcel of imposing their SSM idea.
Take them at their word: they mean what they said.
Example #1.
Jeanette Exner: "None of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the church anyway, they come from government."
Government, Exner now declares, owns each and every marital relationship. This is what SSMers say when the surface is scratched just a little. Government must takeover the foundational social institution of civil society, they insist, because the supremacy of gay identity politics rules over all other considerations.
Example #2.
Teri Simpkins: "Or do Christians still stone people as required in the Bible? [...] that is part of the Christian faith as written in the bible. You really need to learn more about practicing your religion."
The anti-Christian bigotry is openly displayed because this is an expression of how the SSM campaign teaches its supporters to rely on utter falsehoods. The bigger the lie, the more often it is repeated, the more deeply the SSM "failthful" are driven off the cliff of reality.
SSM is the Specious Substitution for Marriage.
NOM is the National Organization for Marriage.
Readers can decide if they are for the substitution or for the real lthing. Readers can decide if they want the radicalism of Exner and Simpkins to rule over them or if they want to protect freedom of conscience.
The leading voices of the SSM campaign encourage the radicalism of its supporters and teaches the supremacy of gay identity politics as a moral absolute. Indeed, some will actually claim that their own moral formation is highly relevant to their choosing the pro-SSM side. Take heed of the misrepresentations and the outright lies and deeply expressed animus that they bring to the public square. This is not unprecedented: consider the corruptive influence of the supremacy of White identity politics not so long ago.
Little Man, I think it's Teri, not "teriyaki."
Gays are discriminated against in housing, employment, etc. One can be fired simply for being gay in many states. I find it amusing that those who are claiming "oppression" are those who have traditionally oppressed.
@flanoggin
I find it amusing you think people being reprimanded for talking about their sex life and bring it into the workplace is oppression.
Common Sense to Zack - Please come back.
Smokers, Alcoholics, Drug Addicts, Pedophiles, and the like are discriminated against in housing and employment as well.
What's your point?
I will not rent to a smoker, drug addict, pedophile, or felon either. Come to think of it; a felon will be a felon all of their life; unlike a sexual deviant who is free to stop being a deviant at any time.
Seems to me a felon is more deserving of civil rights protections then self identified "Gay's" - whatever that is - are.
Satan to Randy - You make me smile. Keep up the good work.
Bobby seems more interested in personal attacks rather than actual debate. How does that famous quote go?
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ― Socrates.
There we go.
There is no debating here....you don't like gays....we get it....
What is this mythical "Gay" I keep reading about...?
Flanoggin only reinforces my point. Me thinks he knows I'm right.
Zack - I will debate. The potential to be fired for being gay has nothing to do with one talking about one's sex life at work just as DADT had nothing to do with talking about sex. It has to do with an employer or up until 2 years ago, the Dept of Defense, learning that one lives with a same sex partner and terminating a person solely for that reason. You are of course free to take your interpretation of the term, debate, into a courtroom and argue against equality. But I assure you will not get very far. And evil Quinn. No one wants a war just as Obama did not divide this great nation by showing support for equality no matter how Bizzarro Brian may spin something. Accept the fact that you live in a world where some people happen to be born gay. As a gay Catholic, I accept the fact that I live in a world where some people chose Christianity and that a great many of those who do use the religion as cover for their intolerance of those who are different than they are.
Whence the source of our rights, Teri?
Not a bit of parchment, contrary to your assertions here.
thanks Garret: You are right, it is "Teri Yak Yak" because there is no consistency in the argumentation from what is not required for a marriage license.
If that is the basis (as it it couldn't be changed by legislators), then it follows that same-sex is also NOT required for a marriage license, and Teri Sinkings argument sinks to the bottom of the ocean
She/he has been answered abundantly on this blog, and it doesn't seem to 'sink' in. If you want play with words, i have lots.
Wishful thinking if you believe that ‘gay’ is not a thing. It not might be a thing you like or believe in or agree with. But it is demonstrably and objectively a ‘thing’ that a huge number of people, globally in the 100s millions, believe themselves to be.
If you consider that the same as thinking that men are made of frogs legs and women of candy then fine. But don’t demean yourself and everyone here with that reductio ad absurdum.
Marc Paul, please state the essentials of the thing you call "gay".
And then point to the legal requirements imposed on those who would SSM -- these requirements must make the essentials you identified absolutely mandatory.
If not, then, sink with Teri.
@Bobby
"The potential to be fired for being gay has nothing to do with one talking about one's sex life at work just as DADT had nothing to do with talking about sex."
What are you talking about? Of course it was. You can serve in the military as long as you don't talk about your sex life and no one has to ask. I don't ask, you don't tell. I can't see how being asked to keep quiet about your personal life is unreasonable.
"learning that one lives with a same sex partner and terminating a person solely for that reason. "
You just contradicted yourself here.
".And evil Quinn. No one wants a war just as Obama did not divide this great nation by showing support for equality no matter how Bizzarro Brian may spin something."
Take it for what it's worth. Obama has divided this country in more ways than one. This is in spite of the fact he won reelection.
"Accept the fact that you live in a world where some people happen to be born gay."
Only no evidence supports the theory that people are born gay.
" As a gay Catholic, I accept the fact that I live in a world where some people chose Christianity and that a great many of those who do use the religion as cover for their intolerance of those who are different than they are."
Disagreement is not intolerance. Being tolerant doesn't mean people HAVE to agree, without question, everything you do. It means putting up with it despite the fact that it may irritate you. For instance, I tolerate the fact that kids in my neighborhood sag their jeans, but I don't agree with it. Make sense?
It is irrelevant whether or not same-sex sexual attraction is inborn. Yes, SSMers want to keep repeating their assumptions and so they would hope to make it relevant to their SSM idea.
Yet, as has been pointed out many times, they balk at making same-sex sexual attraction mandatory for those who's SSM. And they argue that the lack of a legal requirement means that it cannot provide a legitimate basis for lawmaking on eligibility. So they can't use it to revise the marriage law's eligibility lines. And yet they keep making the self-contradicting assertions over and over and over.
They depend on the arbitrary exercise of governmental power, one way or another, to impose SSM. Yet, again, that contradicts the central theme of the SSM campaign: marital status and eligibility for that status must be justified and cannot stand as an arbitrary decree of government.
It is irrelevant whether or not same-sex sexual attraction is inborn. Yes, SSMers want to keep repeating their assumptions and so they would hope to make it relevant to their SSM idea.
more...
Yet, as has been pointed out many times, they balk at making same-sex sexual attraction mandatory for those who's SSM.
And they argue that the lack of a legal requirement means that it cannot provide a legitimate basis for lawmaking on eligibility. So they can't use it to revise the marriage law's eligibility lines. And yet they keep making the self-contradicting assertions over and over and over.
They depend on the arbitrary exercise of governmental power, one way or another, to impose SSM.
Yet, again, that contradicts the central theme of the SSM campaign: marital status and eligibility for that status must be justified and cannot stand as an arbitrary decree of government.
Oh my GoD! Marc Paul knows some Latin: "reductio ad absurdum". Problem is, there's none of that in the comments regarding whether a 'gay' exists.
Of course a gay person exists. I am gay right now (happy). But, does a 'gay' (some sort of mutant) exist? Is the proof in who 'says' he is 'gay'? If that is so, then 'gayness' is a religion.
That is something we can all agree on, and the debate is finished, and everyone is happy (really gay). And we see the debate is all about the given meaning of words. The American English language is allowed to change according to its usage. Therefore, people are allowed to give new meanings and associations to words. The entire SSm debate is really only about what words mean, not whether people have 'attraction' to other people (and therefore have a 'right' to get married by consent.)
And therefore, it is entertaining.
Mythical? Are they unicorns?
Hey Bobby, stop fronting for Satan - He's too busy keeping track of your side's activities........
The word "Gay" was exclusively used as an adjective for promiscuity up until the mid 1970's when it was first bastardized into a noun in reference to men who like to masturbate against other men. Now these heathen are using the word as a noun in reference to everybody that likes to masturbate against same gender companions, in an obvious attempt to paint their proclivity as something unique to some sub-species of man to which they belong.
If they they believed their proclivity were acceptable they would not be here insisting it be declared to be what it was incapable of ever be becoming.
SCOTUS will make it abundantly clear this year that we do not classify people by what they like to do; that doing so would spell the end of the Republic.
Hey Randy: Religion classifies people by what they like to do as a result of their dogma.
We do have a secular spot for those who believe marriage can be between same-sex. They can register their religion of sorts (or not) with the government, just like some Mormons considered polygamy an essential doctrine in their religion, and some still practice it behind doors. As you already know, i don't believe polygamy is a sin. It's just not optimal.
But when it comes to a marriage license, we have to have the number of votes to keep EVERYONE who wants some extra benefits from registering their partnership as 'marriage', because opposite-sex marriage pays for itself (its own benefits - by indirectly reducing government expenditures), but same-sex marriage doesn't.
I'm sure you wouldn't think much of that new religion of 'gays', but actually the religion (ideology) already exists, is organized, it has its doctrines, it is persuasive (to those naive or superficial), and it is powerful and wealthy. We could call it "Sinsanity" or something - whatever
For now it is called LGBT, or GLBT, or TGBL, but that is a term which can get confused with GBLT - Greasy Bacon Lettuce & Tomato sandwich.
Little Man, you are truly an idiot. And that's something most of us can agree on...
Zack - I too tolerate many things that I don't agree with. I don't care for the saggy jean look either and like you, I would certainly not look to outlaw the look even though I disagree with it. So then why would you seek to have the civil recognition of the relationship of a gay couple down the street - together for say 20 years - outlawed just because you don't agree with it?
Bobby you completely misunderstand and misrepresent my views. I don't want to outlaw anything. I believe I said countless times I am for legal recognition of same sex couples. But I cannot support calling them legal marriages because they lack the basic components of what a marriage is.
I'm still waiting for a "SSM" supporter to explain how public recognition of these types of relationships are nobody elses business...?
Either you want public recognition, or you don't; which is it?