Up North in America’s Hat, gay activist groups are pressuring the Government to effectively deny Christians the right to practice law; the first step to barring Christians from participation in the political and economic life of the country.
On April 24th, the law society of Canada’s largest province voted against admitting among their ranks graduates of Trinity Western University, for the sole reason that the school’s community covenant, which students (and teachers) voluntarily sign upon admission or hiring, reserves sexual intimacy for heterosexual marriage. Nova Scotia followed suit, wording their rejection as approval on the condition that TWU change its community covenant or allow students to opt out.
If allowed to stand, this effectively makes devout Christians who do not believe in gay marriage second class Canadian citizens; effectively enacting dhimmitude on anyone who doesn’t forsake their religious conscience in favor of the State.
Communist China is somewhat less subtle in their efforts to eliminate Christianity; the Government is actively demolishing churches.
To the Progressive Socialist Totalitarian Left, Christianity is a threat to the primacy of the State. The Totalitarian Left believes the Authority of the State must be absolute, because the left can control all the apparatuses of the State and impose their moral beliefs on the population. For example, the belief that unborn children can be sacrificed in the name of personal convenience and the sick and elderly can be sacrificed to save the State money. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that there is a Higher Moral Authority than the State; and that the conscience of the individual… not the Collective Will as embodied in the State and its organs.
It isn’t necessarily because of Gay Marriage, per se, but Gay Marriage is a cudgel that the left can use against Christianity; forcing Christians to bow to the State (e.g. being forced to participate in gay weddings as bakers, photographers, and florists). The ultimate goal is to eradicate Christianity and its tenet that each individual has a conscience and a moral imperative.
On the left, the State *is* the Church.
Didn’t Hitler do that with Jews, preventing them from certain occupations, and in the USSR, where only Communists could hold jobs? Hmm, interesting symmetry.
Anyone remember how a few years back the Left was promising that things like this (and the bakery stuff) would never ever happen? How the slippery slope argument was just empty words and could be ignored?
Yet here we are. Give an inch, lose a mile. Etc.
Remember how the argument goes that changing the gender restriction in who can marry would never lead to any other possible changes in the marriage restrictions?
Not sure how the freedom of religion works in Canada but pretty sure this wouldn’t pass the first amendment here-at least right now.
It does pretty much show that the far left is full of liars and intolerance. The left only tolerates those things it agrees with while demanding not only tolerance but affirmation from those who don’t.
Last night I watched the repeat of Sean Hannity’s Friday night program, since I fell asleep before it started. He used an old radio broadcast by Paul Harvey entitled “If I were the Devil.” I, personally, do not believe in the devil. I do believe in evil, as a free will choice, by some and mindlessly followed by others. It seems as though Paul Harvey had a crystal ball. Was it really a crystal ball or just common sense? The gay community’s fate was sealed in the early 70’s. When I saw the PBS specials; “Before Stonewall” and “After Stonewall (of which I’ve copied on tape) in which the so called community leaders in an organizational planning meeting decided that the struggle for gay rights was the same as the Viet Namese struggle for freedom, hence the Gay Liberation Front. To my mind it sounded communistic, after all here in El Salvador, our leftist are the Farabundi Marti por Liberatcion Nacional, and the Sandinista Liberation Front in Nicaragua. As a Gay Republican I was and am repelled by the thought that the gay community was inextricably tied to the radical left. There were testimonies from several who claimed to have been Republican but had an epiphany to join the left; and even an ex-marine corps chaplain was included. Since progressives are marxists-leninist it should come as no surprise that the gay left is anti-Christian. Religion is the opiate of the people. Maybe Paul Harvey didn’t have crystal ball; maybe he saw those PBS specials.
If history has taught us anything, it is that good people are patient and will put up with a lot. But there will be a tipping point that will generate a backlash. The question then becomes will conservative gays be willing to give up gains which have been made if it means eliminating or curtailing the progressives power over us?
“The question then becomes will conservative gays be willing to give up gains”
you cannot call gains the things you obtained with violence, deceit and mobbing
frankly there were a million other ways to share things with a partner without destroying marriage
@ Susan: Please do not lay the dissolution of marriage at the feet of homosexuals, as tempting of a scapegoat we may be. Heterosexuals were debasing marriage long before gay marriage was a twinkle in the eyes of progressives. All are guilty, and all shall be punished.
It’s ironic that the Left cares about minority groups only so far as the minorities can help them gain power and marginalize their enemies. Gay marriage gets championed because it can be used to sideline the Christian denominations that most oppose the Left. STDs among gay men can’t be used as a rallying cry, so let the queers suffer.
I wonder how long it will be before some Democratic congressperson suggests that conservative Christians be forced to wear bright, noticeable crosses on their clothing, and perhaps be forced to live in the most run-down parts of cities, walled-off from everybody else…
“Please do not lay the dissolution of marriage at the feet of homosexuals”
This is preposterous and useless to establish. Whether marriage was already on a shaky ground or not does not matter (and take into consideration that the USA is not the whole world, there are still a lot of countries with divorce rates very low – talking about personal experience there is nobody in my family or immediate circle of friends that divorced).
The baker, florist and photographer would have been sued anyway, regardless of the current divorce rate.
Statistics in the Scandinavian countries show that after passing gay marriage the number of straight marriages reach an historical low. It is evident that even in ultraprogressive northern Europe the message has been ‘this rite has no value anymore’.
As a matter of fact it has lost exclusivity and it gained nothing, and it gave an overabundance of arrogance to the ‘winners’ who were already pretty arrogant. I do not understand what is the ending point, homosexuality will never be preferred to heterosexuality by mothers and fathers for their sons and daughters. Do they really think ‘acceptance’ (code word for standing ovation) will come to a point where mother would wish to have a gay son to brag about him with their friends?
This obviously will never happen unless we turn into full fascism mode.
@ Susan: The Left only pushed for gay marriage because they figured that straight people didn’t care about marriage anyways. The Sexual Revolution, straight infidelity, and no-fault divorce were all the evidence they needed.
When the Supreme Court repealed DOMA, Rush Limbaugh did not blame gays- he blamed straights for cheating on their spouses and getting divorced after a couple of years; and yes, he included himself in that indictment. If a tree gets blown over by a gust of wind, it’s not because the gust was very strong, it’s because the tree had rotted inside.
“the ultimate goal is to eradicate christianity,” the ultimate goal is to destroy individual freedom something leftists, straight or gay, don’t believe in. after the revolution so much for gay rights.
All this stuff, I have come to strongly suspect, is simply the natural unfolding of the Civil Rights Act, when the State decided that citizens were not free to associate with whom they wished. This was the origin of the State as Church. The whole “anti-discrimination” regime has been a mistake. Because every victim-group’s attainment of “rights” is seen as a version of the race issue. Which is (wrongly) sacrosanct, for liberals and conservatives both.
The Civil Rights Act(s) dealt with de jure racial segregation. They were the culmination of nearly a century of Democrat written and enforced Jim Crows laws put in place to keep blacks in their Democrat assigned place.
Following the initial upheaval of overturning de jure (by law) segregation, the activists took aim at de facto segregation which is segregation in fact, but not by law.
The Democrats flipped 180 degrees and became the ardent champions of erasing the scars of 100 years of their own de jure rule by over reaction like a whore praying in church.
Forced school busing, affirmative action, “balanced” hiring, and all manner of social engineering ensued.
Very shortly, the liberals began to search for other victims to help.
It is beyond my comprehension just how a man choosing to marry a man is a civil rights victim. However, I readily admit that the state should not give benefits to married partners which it denies to gay partners which the state will not permit to marry. That is why I readily support the civil union solution so that the state remains neutral in the issue.
We have heard a great deal during the Obama administration about “dog whistles” which are racist innuendos perceived by race sensitive people who are sensitive to social justice. Many gays have the same unique sensitivity for ferreting out homophobia at Chik-fil-A.
It is flat-footed stupid to assume that politicians are the path to settling issues concerning raw nerves within any self anointed victim community. Obama, himself, was engaged in organizing communities along the lines of stirring up what agitates them.
The liberals turned holding hands into a form of rape and they have made civil rights into whether a kindergarten kid who bites a pop tart into a gun shape is too dangerous a critter to be allowed to roam about unregulated.
If you are gay and any given “words” hurt you then you should run for the courts as fast as your legs can carry you. (Oh, I am sorry, I didn’t mean to offend gays in wheelchairs.)
“It is evident that even in ultraprogressive northern Europe the message has been ‘this rite has no value anymore.’ is no standard of measurement. Scandinavian countries have been officially Lutheran since the seventeeth century. State sponsored denominatiions have experienced a massive decline in attendance. I use the word denomination to distiguish it from religion. This is the semantic problem with the Second Amendment. We have the right to a free expression of religion, but we will never have a state sponsored religion, as existed in the colonies: Virginia, Anglican, Rhode Island, Baptist, New York, Dutch Reformed, etc. In El Salvador, Article 26 of the Constitcion the Roman Catholic Church is the official religion but is autonomous in that it receives no government support as do state religions. Also, Article 32 defines traditional marriage and is encouraged by the government, Article 1 defines that life begins at conception and as such is entitled to all the protections afforded citizens under the “Constitucion.” That is why there is no PC here.
@ Roberto Paul Harvey did not have a crystal ball he had a set of history books. The founding fathers understood the hearts of men & tried to avoid many of the mistakes of history. The statist power game has never changed.
The part about gay marriage being used to attack str8s belies the point that gays are the cudgel used to beat the heads of traditionalists, and they don’t care if we get a few dents.
“When the Supreme Court repealed DOMA, Rush Limbaugh did not blame gays”
again, the florist, the baker, the photographer would have been sued even if divorce did not exist and this is all gays doing. Divorce rates are irrelevant to this point.
@ Susan: You seem to be missing my point: progressives only started to promote gay marriage because they deemed that there was sufficient low esteem for the institution among heterosexuals, of which high divorce rates are an expression.
Steve,
The crystal ball was a tongue in cheek comment, just as Sean Hannity asked if Paul was another Nostradamus. In other words, did he have precognition? I went on to ask was really a crystal ball or common sense? It was a rhetorical question. Obviously common sense and history. However he heard about the gay community organizing whether it was the news print or media, or the documentaries on PBS; the fact that the organizers chose to call themselves the Gay Liberation Front because they likened the gay struggle to be equal to the struggle to that of the Vietnamese Liberation Front. Their goal was to unite a divided country under communist rule. Everywhere in the world where there was dictatorship or statist government, there was a movement called Liberation Front, to distabilize the government and implement marxism.
The movements in Central America received the green light from Presient Jimmy Carter. Initially it failed in El Salvador but they’ve now won at the ballot box. It was successful in Nicaragua, where, pro U.S.A. Samoza was overthrown. When FDR was told that Samoza (the father), was exploiting his people, and that he is an SOB. FDR responded, yes but he is our SOB.Today’s communists are more aware of history and how such movements generate, can divide loyalties. Hugo Chavez campaigned as a pro business, pro U.S.A candidate. It didn’t take him long to do a 180 degree turn and rechristen communism as 21st century socialism.
“You seem to be missing my point: progressives only started to promote gay marriage because they deemed that there was sufficient low esteem for the institution among heterosexuals, of which high divorce rates are an expression”
If there was low esteem there was no need to push it over the cliff, the point is evident that a huge number of people deemed the institution worth preserving.
I am not aware of those ‘high divorce rates’ you are talking about, they are still a quarter of the divorce rates among gays (who also have an average relationship duration much shorter)