NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Politics

Brian Brown: America Needs a Leader Who Will Protect the Family

In the coming election, America needs a candidate willing to stand up for truth. The DNC has failed America in this respect; the Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage under the Obama administration has incontrovertibly proved that.

When we turn to the GOP though, we are met with an alarming lack of leadership on social issues. Two top presidential candidates, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, have both remained relatively silent on the marriage decision. Brian Brown, The National Organization for Marriage’s president, reflects:

ThinkstockPhotos-532747033The battle against abortion and same-sex marriage has turned into an all out war for the soul of the country, between those who believe in religious liberty and those who want to trample it.

With this Supreme Court decision, many in the movement, including pastors and priests, believe they will be forced to risk their personal freedom with persecution, possible jail time, or even martyrdom.

The 2016 presidential campaign will be long and difficult. This decision by two of the top-tier candidates to duck one of the most controversial and important issues of our time shows they are not ready to fight for the principles conservatives expect and demand of their candidates.

In the 2016 presidential election, the National Organization for Marriage will only support a leader, someone who will fight for marriage, in spite of a court’s decision.

See Fox News for Brian Brown’s full analysis.

Bobby Jindal Knows Exactly What Marriage Is

While the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding marriage exemplifies that the majority of the justices do not understand the cultural significance, biological requirements, or historical reasoning of marriage, Bobby Jindal assures everyone that he is not “evolving” on marriage:

Bobby-JindalGOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal says he will not change his stance on marriage.

The Louisiana governor made that clear when he sat down for an interview with The Daily Signal earlier this year in Baton Rouge.

“My faith teaches me that marriage is between a man and a woman. I’m not changing,” Jindal says. “I know it’s politically fashionable to evolve. I’m not evolving and it doesn’t matter to me what the polls say…that is one of those issues that I’m not going to change on.”

Jindal has called the Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing gay marriage an “all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians.”

While Jindal says his state will comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, he has also stated that court clerks and state workers can’t be forced to support the ruling if they have religious objections.

Jindal says he will continue to push for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage between a man and a woman.

Original article and video can be found via The Daily Signal.

The Marriage Debate is Far From Over

Frank Schubert, a long-time partner with NOM and an indispensable marriage champion, pens his insightful observations on how the Supreme Court’s ruling will affect our nation’s continued war on marriage:

The long-expected decision of the U.S. Supreme Court imposing same-sex marriage on the country has been issued. The obvious next question is whether this settles the matter, and there’s a one-word answer: “Hardly.”

If anything, the court’s decision is likely to roil the nation and pave a path toward more cultural conflict, not less.

I have been engaged with the American people in a robust debate on the nature of marriage and how it should be treated in the law ever since I managed the successful Proposition 8 campaign in California. I’ve been involved in legislative and electoral contests in more than a dozen states and in every region of the country.

I realize that many people disagree with the view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That’s what makes a debate and why we have elections. My side prevailed in four public votes and lost in four others. That is how closely divided the nation is on same-sex marriage.

The 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court has illegitimately truncated that debate. In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”

The court’s narrow majority has substituted its views for those of countless elected officials and more than 50 million voters who decided that traditional marriage should be preserved in their respective states. In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia called it exercising “super legislative” authority.

In legislating from the bench, the court has deprived both sides of the satisfaction of potentially winning the public debate, while cheating the losing side of any solace that might come from being defeated in a fair fight.

This decision joins other infamous rulings that lacked constitutional legitimacy, including the Dred Scott case declaring that African Americans were not citizens but property, and Roe v. Wade mandating abortion in every state. Just as Roe did not settle the issue of abortion, Obergefell v. Hodges won’t settle the marriage debate.

The inevitable result of this ruling will be to ensure that marriage remains controversial. The most immediate political conflict concerns what actions governments might take to force acceptance of the ruling. In states with gay marriage, bakers, florists, photographers and innkeepers have been punished for refusing to participate in same-sex ceremonies. Religious groups have been forced to close ministries such as adoption agencies to avoid violating their beliefs. President Barack Obama’s top litigator has already hinted that Christian colleges could lose their tax exemptions if they do not allow gay couples to live together on campus.

Chief Justice Roberts noted the court majority “ominously” gives lip service to religious liberty by saying that religious people and groups can “teach” and “advocate” for traditional marriage, but the Constitution guarantees the right to the exercise of religion.

There will be a pitched legislative battle in Congress to enact the First Amendment Defense Act (S 1598/HR 2802) to prevent any federal agency from taking adverse action against anyone based on their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The court’s decision will also powerfully inject marriage into the 2016 presidential contest. The most direct course to reverse this ruling lies in the next president appointing new justices to the Supreme Court. Social conservatives will do everything possible to ensure that the Republican nominee is a strong pro-marriage champion, making this a litmus test throughout the GOP primaries and caucuses.

There will also be a strong push to amend the U.S. Constitution, not only to reverse this ruling, but to hold the Supreme Court more accountable. Is amending the constitution easy? No, but neither is recalling a governor or removing state Supreme Court justices, yet these things have been accomplished.

Liberals will bemoan these conflicts as a continuation of the “culture wars,” but they are responsible for advancing them. As long as important values are under fire, especially when they involve giving government the power to subvert unalienable rights granted by our creator, conservatives must either engage the debate or surrender. I don’t see any white flags on the horizon.

Frank Schubert is founder of Mission Public Affairs, a Sacramento political consulting firm. He ran the pro-Proposition 8 campaign in 2008 and several other campaigns around the country supporting traditional marriage.

This article originally appeared on The Sacramento Bee.

No Longer is it US: It’s Them vs. Us

Real Clear Politics features a sharp piece by William Murchison that appraises what the recent Supreme Court ruling on marriage means for our country. With this latest turn of events, it is hard to find proof that the majority of our unelected judicial leaders fully understand what the terms “democracy,” “liberty,” and “marriage” truly mean:

ThinkstockPhotos-89614480We live at an odd and dangerous moment -- one framed only in part by the court's recent extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. There is much else to flummox and worry us. "Consent of the governed" seems the last thing on the minds of those determined to herd the sheep -- you and me -- to supposedly brighter pastures.

"We know what's good for you!" is their loud, if unarticulated, injunction. Generally succeeded by: "Shut up -- didn't you hear what we said?"

Chief Justice John Roberts posed a broader, sounder question -- "Just who do we think we are?" -- to his colleagues in the marriage case. By a vote of 5 to 4, the court handed to Americans a new, untested definition of human domestic relationships. Old understandings of marriage were off. We needed a new one -- see? -- and we got it.

Justice Antonin Scalia, as is his wont, saw to the bottom of the matter, writing in dissent: "A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."

You can take all this if you like as a succession of harrumphings by angry losers. Or you can consider, shall we say, the Big Picture: one bigger than the court, bigger than any wedding party, whatever its sexual composition.

The United States of America -- your country and mine -- has for several decades been unmooring itself from allegiance to truths once generally agreed on as essential to human happiness and freedom. Whether we necessarily meant to slip ancient anchors, that has been the effect. The old American vision no longer serves! A new one is wanted! That's been the consistent narrative.

. . .

The victors want to sweep off the table everything that doesn't please them, replacing it with creations of their own design. What's more, by virtue of their patience and persistence, the victors run vast regions of our country, both geographical and intellectual. They'll tell you Alexander Hamilton doesn't belong on the $10 bill and that our president was right to bathe the White House -- the people's house -- in the rainbow colors of gay liberation.

There's just one trouble. Uprooting truth, or that which has historically been taken for truth, requires more than Justice Anthony Kennedy's say-so. Our elitist Supreme Court has guaranteed for us cultural and constitutional headaches for which no pharmacological remedy exists, headaches possibly of the sort that Mike Huckabee forecasts, involving defiance and division.

Kentucky Clerks Object to Same-sex Marriage Ruling

A group of court clerks in Kentucky have halted issuing all marriage licenses, following the Supreme Court 5-4 ruling that is forcing all states to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

ThinkstockPhotos-86527346In order to not be considered “discriminatory,” several clerks in Kentucky have simply stopped issuing any marriage licenses. As Casey County Clerk Casey Davis said, “my religious convictions will not allow me to in good conscience issue same-sex marriage licenses, and I don't want to be discriminatory toward them, or anyone else, so I choose not issue a marriage license, period."

Naturally, resistance to the imposition of same-sex marriage is not to be tolerated by same-sex marriage proponents:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky said its lawyers would be willing to represent same-sex couples who are refused a marriage license in Kentucky.

"It's our contention that government officials' personal objections are insufficient to justify refusing to do what they have been elected by the people to do, in terms of issuing these marriage licenses," said Bill Sharp, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Kentucky. Sharp declined to say whether any couples have called the ACLU to say they have been denied a license.

Davis, the Casey County clerk, noted that state law allows for any resident over age 18 to seek a marriage license in any county of Kentucky.

"So I don't see that I have to be the one that issues it," Davis said.

Even though the clerks are merely invoking their religious liberties, same-sex marriage proponents are not allowing this quiet rebellion to go unchallenged. As AOL reported:

Chris Hartman, executive director of the Fairness Campaign, a gay-rights advocacy organization, said the clerks could face lawsuits over their refusal to issue marriage licenses.

"If these county clerks don't abide by the law of the land ... they will be sued and they will waste taxpayer time and dollars on a frivolous and self-righteous pursuit that ultimately will be fruitless," Hartman said.

Hartman said his group would refer callers who can't get a marriage license to the ACLU of Kentucky.

These Kentucky clerks are absolute heroes. All American citizens are encouraged to stand up for marriage, especially through actions such as these. While the opposing side may well attempt to invoke violent attacks against us, those who support marriage as the union between one man and one woman have the benefit of truth on their side.

The road is certainly not easy, but the fight to protect marriage is without a doubt, a fight worth fighting.

Thank you to all who continue to stand strong in the face of adversity and continue to proclaim the truth: marriage is the union between one man and one woman, and ONLY one man and one woman.

Listen to KQED Radio’s Forum Featuring NOM’s President, Brian Brown!

From KQED.org:

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court made history by ruling that the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage nationwide. Gay men and women "ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. "The Constitution grants them that right." San Franciscans waving rainbow flags outside City Hall tearfully hugged each other after hearing the news, which came right before the San Francisco Pride Celebration and Parade weekend. We discuss the 5-4 decision and what this means for the country.

How to Respond to SCOTUS Ruling on Marriage

This is judicial activism: nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage, and the court imposed its judgment about a policy matter that should be decided by the American people and their elected representatives. The court got marriage and the Constitution wrong today just like they got abortion and the Constitution wrong 42 years ago with Roe v. Wade. Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution. - Ryan Anderson

While the decision of the Supreme Court is both tragic and unsurprising, marriage supporters should not give up hope. While the ruling is a disappointment, it is by no means the deciding outcome in the war on marriage. Marriage has always been defined by nature as between one man and one woman. No matter what laws the Supreme Court Justices change, they cannot change the truth.

Ryan Anderson offers encouraging words and advice on how marriage defenders can continue the fight to defend marriage as it has always been defined - the union between one man and one woman:

Marriage will always the union of one man and one woman

Marriage will always the union of one man and one woman.

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage acts as a powerful social norm that encourages men and women to commit to each other so they will take responsibility for any children that follow.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Because the court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant set-back to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

You can read Anderson’s full article at The Daily Signal.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

The Marriage Pledge: A Litmus Test

The Washington Post joins a number of other major national media in covering NOM’s Presidential Marriage Pledge launched last week. As the article notes, every major Republican candidate in 2012 signed NOM’s presidential pledge, including nominee Mitt Romney. NOM expects the Presidential Marriage Pledge to play a significant role in ensuring that marriage is a top-tier issue in the campaign, and will work to ensure that the Republican nominee is a strong marriage champion.

ThinkstockPhotos-78479938With a field of almost 20 candidates, the undercards are looking for every opportunity to stand out. Though attitudes have shifted rapidly, social conservatives who oppose same-sex unions retain the power to decide who wins Iowa’s caucuses and South Carolina’s primary. The National Organization for Marriage is determined to make support for a Constitutional amendment overturning the SCOTUS decision a litmus test. Last week, it began publicly prodding 2016 candidates to sign a pledge that they will do everything possible to “overturn” an “illegitimate” decision.

Almost all of the 2012 candidates signed the NOM “marriage pledge,” including Mitt Romney. But the atmosphere has changed substantially. The donor class is more powerful than ever because of Citizens United, and most major donors either back same-sex marriage or feel pretty agnostic about social issues. The most credible candidates also worry about turning off independents and younger voters in a general election: a CNN poll last month found that 63 percent of Americans believe gays and lesbians have a Constitutional right to marry. This will incline contenders like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and John Kasich to say that they respect the rule of law, despite whatever their personal beliefs may be. On the other side, Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment in April that would let states re-ban gay marriage. Bobby Jindal supports such an amendment; Scott Walker suggested openness to considering such an approach, but he’s also said the courts settled the issue in his home state of Wisconsin.

Full article can be found via The Washington Post.

NOM Issues Presidential Pledge

NOM Marriage Pledge

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has today issued our 2016 Presidential Pledge, calling on all Republican candidates to pledge to take five specific actions to protect marriage if they are elected. This pledge will help give candidates the opportunity to show they are true champions for marriage and not merely providing lip service. In 2012, every major candidate signed NOM’s presidential pledge.

CNN has the breaking news story:

Candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination will be urged Thursday to sign a pledge promising to support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The National Organization for Marriage's request comes as the nation waits to see if the U.S. Supreme Court will rule this month to legalize same sex marriage across the country.

"Republicans need to not just give lip service to marriage," Brian Brown, president of the organization, told CNN in an interview. "By signing the pledge they are committing to concrete steps to protect marriage."

Among other things, an advance copy of the five-point pledge provided to CNN calls on candidates to support a constitutional amendment.

. . .

"Our hope is that as many candidates as possible sign, but at the end of the day what we want is a champion for marriage, someone who will stand up and do what is necessary to protect it," Brown said. "So whether we end up having four candidates or 15 we are going to support he candidates that stand up and sign the pledge."

We will never stop defending marriage, and we will support the presidential candidates who are courageous enough to stand up for marriage, as it has always been defined in our nation, and how it always will be defined by nature, by truth, and by the family as the union of one man and one woman.

BREAKING NEWS – Victory in North Carolina!

The House of Representatives in North Carolina just voted 69-41 to override Governor Pat McCrory’s veto of Senate Bill 2, the critical legislation that will protect marriage and religious liberty. The state Senate previously voted to override McCrory’s veto meaning that this important legislation now becomes law! This is a huge victory for supporters of marriage and was brought about because of the efforts of NOM’s members and others working in support of allies in North Carolina including the NC Values Coalition.

SB 2 allows clerks, magistrates and Registers of Deeds to refuse to participate in a same-sex ‘wedding’ ceremony if doing so violates their deeply-held beliefs. This protects people of faith from having to choose between keeping their job and upholding their beliefs.

It was outrageous that Governor McCrory, a Republican, would veto this legislation and we will work with allies to hold him accountable.

Political Leaders Defending Religious Liberty

“There is no constitutional right or rationale basis to support a decision forcing states to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages more than any other relationship. The only way the court can arrive at such a decision is by creating special rights for same-sex relationships on par with civil rights that were granted to African Americans in the ‘60s. This will necessarily preclude everyone, including religious institutions, from upholding their beliefs about marriage on their private property.” -Daniel Horowitz

ThinkstockPhotos-122402348Conservative Review’s Senior Editor, Daniel Horowitz, comments on the recent actions of Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Utah Senator Mike Lee to protect religious liberties, and calls on other political leaders to follow suit:

In comes Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) with a bill to protect religious institutions from any discrimination or reprisal from the federal government in the event that a new constitutional right is invented. In the coming days, he plans to reintroduce his Marriage and Religious Liberty Act from last year with some additions. In addition to protecting religious institutions from “adverse action,” this bill prevents the federal government from denying tax-exempt status to charitable groups, invalidating employee benefit plans that fail to accommodate same-sex relationships, or discriminate against them in any contractual relationship with the government.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has already introduced legislation to mitigate the damage of an impending ‘Roe v Wade-style’ ruling in the marriage case. The Protect Marriage from the Courts Act of 2015 would freeze any action implementing the court’s decision by stripping the federal courts from any jurisdiction over marriage. It also invokes Congress’ power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by making it clear that the judgment only applies to the parties in the current case and cannot be applied to other cases. This will allow states like Alabama to invoke their plenary power over marriage and withhold licenses for same-sex couples – without the federal courts attempting to use this case as precedent for invalidating further state actions.

. . .

In the event that the Supreme Court strikes down marriage as an institution in the coming weeks, there will be a stampede for the doors in Republican circles to wash their hands of defending marriage and religious liberty once and for all. Cruz and Lee are making it clear that the fight is just beginning. Where is Sen. Mitch McConnell? Will he join with them to bring these bills to the floor instead of focusing on growing government or rubber stamping Obama’s agenda? Will all the presidential candidates promise to continue the fight even after the Supreme Court’s decision and sign these bills into law?

This nation was originally founded as a haven for religious liberty. It was not founded for the purpose of universal health care subsidies. Shouldn’t Republicans exhibit the same zeal to protect marriage and religious liberty from the courts as they plan to do with Obamacare subsidies?

Original article is available at Conservative Review.

North Carolina Passes Legislation Protecting Officials Against Government Coercion to Perform Same-sex ‘Weddings’

ThinkstockPhotos-99272117The North Carolina House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed legislation to allow local magistrates and registers of deeds, the officials who perform marriages in the state, to refuse to participate in a same-sex ‘wedding’ if doing so violates their deeply held religious objections, and similarly if they refuse to perform heterosexual wedding ceremonies. The vote in the House was 67-43, following similar lop-sided passage in the State Senate. The legislation was pushed in response to the illegitimate decision of a federal judge to overturn North Carolina’s marriage amendment that was overwhelmingly adopted by voters in 2012.

Supporters of Senate Bill 2 say it effectively balances the rights of state employees who object to same-sex marriage and the rights of the couples seeking a wedding.

“This bill provides a balancing act – to make sure marriages across this state are performed in a blind fashion,” said Rep. Dean Arp, a Monroe Republican. “The question is should you be fired from a job because you choose to live your life by those religious beliefs.”

Unfortunately, Governor Pat McCrory (a Republican) has tragically promised a veto of the legislation and appears to have swallowed the false talking points of same-sex marriage activists and the left. This will likely prove to be a tremendous miscalculation on McCrory’s part. There is a real chance that the Legislature would override McCrory’s veto. Sen. Phil Berger, the President of the Senate, authored this legislation. Further, McCrory is up for reelection next year. A veto of the bill invites a primary challenge and certainly will alienate him from the conservative base of the Republican Party. NOM will be working with allies in the state to assess our options.

Gov. Pat McCrory announced Thursday afternoon that he’ll veto a bill to allow magistrates to opt out of performing marriage if they have a religious objection.

The governor’s announcement came just hours after the N.C. House approved it in a 67-43 final vote Thursday.

. . .

“Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2.”

The U.S. Constitution and federal law protect people from religious persecution and coercion, specifically requiring the government to make reasonable accommodations for people of faith. This modest legislation in North Carolina simply protects people from having to choose between keeping their job and their religious beliefs. Nobody should be forced to participate in any ‘wedding’ against their wishes:

The conservative N.C. Values Coalition, which has advocated for the bill, issued a stinging critique of McCrory’s decision Thursday afternoon.

“Senate Bill 2 will protect the fundamental American freedom to exercise one’s religious beliefs, and it is unacceptable for any governor who calls himself ‘conservative’ to veto legislation like SB2,” spokeswoman Jessica Wood said.

The solution to this situation, of course, is for the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the right of states to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, which would reinstate the North Carolina Marriage Amendment and make legislation like this unnecessary. We hope that the justices are watching the chaos that is occurring in the states as they struggle with ways to deal with the damage done by federal judges who have illegitimately imposed their own views of marriage, despite the democratic decisions of voters and elected legislators.

Source and quotes via News Observer.

Principle Before Policy: The Stronger Argument

ThinkstockPhotos-484900357The transgender movement has been gliding through with almost no opposition for a while now, and the reason for that is because many democrats have stood by it on principle. They have made it to a non-negotiable issue, instead of arguing for it on policy. Furthermore, the main reason for the rise in the transgender movement is an almost complete lack of resistance from republicans. Sean Fieler from The Daily Signal, Chairman of American Principles Project and a long-time supporter of NOM, expounds on this in detail:

The rapidly growing acceptance of the previously marginal idea that underlies the transgender moment was only made possible by the Republican decision to opt out of this debate entirely.

Almost without exception, Republicans have chosen to ignore the underlying principle and logic of the LGBT movement, confident that they could win this political debate on other grounds. In retrospect, this one decision laid the groundwork for the stunning series of defeats Republicans have suffered on issues of human sexuality over the past dozen years.

Ironically, the transgender moment proves what was once a conservative insight—ideas matter. For, neither inertia, nor electoral victory, has protected Republicans from the sweeping changes entailed in the LGBT agenda. Worse still, having failed to engage at the level of principle for so long, Republicans have lost not just the debate but also the will to engage.

The decision by many republicans to not make a stand on the transgender debate will continue to wear down any of their agendas, making the resistance weaker. Instead of standing against an idea, they should be standing for an ideal:

To successfully advance this argument without appearing to oppose a small, troubled minority, Republicans will need to articulate the principle for which they stand, not just the one they oppose. Having already repeatedly affirmed that our rights come from God, not the state, Republicans are starting in the right place. They need only add the logical corollary that if we recast ourselves in a way that denies either our human nature or our Creator, we undermine the very basis of the rights we cherish and defend.

Pope Benedict put it best, “When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God … ”

Please read the full article at The Daily Signal.

Clear and Present Danger to Christianity

ThinkstockPhotos-56382560Marco Rubio, Florida Senator and Presidential Candidate, stated to CBN News that due to the recent infringement on free speech rights, there is a real danger to Christianity in this country. Rubio, a Christian himself, sees the family as the highest form of social order in the world. He believes that the recent attempts to redefine marriage as an unnatural entity in same-sex marriage will pervert the social order, and in doing so, act against Christian principles.

Rubio comments on the attack on the family stating:

"If you think about it, we are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech," Rubio told CBN News. "Because today we've reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater."

"So what's the next step after that?" he asked.

"After they are done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church is hate speech and there's a real and present danger," he warned.

He warns that if America doesn’t lead the world in social and economic issues that the world will spin into chaos; such as in Ireland recently.

"You don't want to be engaged in every conflict on the planet. We're not the world's policemen," he said. "But I question - what would happen in the alternative? If America doesn't lead, what happens? Well, what happens is chaos."

Source via CBN News.

Jeb Bush Stands Up For Right Not To Be Coerced

ThinkstockPhotos-chariastThe beginning stages of the presidential campaign are starting to bring the views of the various candidates into focus. Jeb Bush recently told CBN that he supports the right of a Christian small business owner to decline to provide services for a same-sex ‘wedding.’ He correctly understands that people ought to remain free to exercise their beliefs about marriage and that this is not discrimination. He also reiterated his position that same-sex ‘marriage’ is not a constitutional right:

"A big country, a tolerant country ought to be able to figure out the difference between discriminating someone because of their sexual orientation and not forcing someone to participate in a wedding that they find goes against their moral beliefs," Bush said.

Shouldn’t it be obvious that as our own free arbiters of what we support, we should also be able to choose what not to support? Americans being forced to conform to other people’s opinions on social issues, is a brazen attack against individual rights:

In recent months, the question of service provision, religion and sexuality has become a hot button issue, with court cases arising over incidents of people being refused service because of their sexual orientation, or business owners being forced to provide services to same sex partners despite their religious convictions.

The issue was further fanned by the recent signing of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, which allow business owners to cite religious rights as a reasons for refusing service. Gay rights group have condemned the acts, and cited them as a form of discrimination.

Source via Christian Today.