Life Site News: The totalitarianism of same-sex ‘marriage’

 In November of 1996 First Things hosted a symposium titled “The Judicial Usurpation of Politics” in which contributors discussed the threat to American democracy posed by the Supreme Court instated imposition of abortion on America. Nothing rivals the sheer volume of innocent human beings killed by abortion and yet First Things saw fit to focus not on the babies themselves or the mothers and fathers, but on the threat to democracy and the American experiment posed by the judicial over-reach that legalized abortion.

The legalization of same-sex “marriage” does not bring with it the innocent blood which cries to heaven, though it is perhaps the single most audacious social engineering initiative in American history. But the way in which it has been imposed in state after state, as courts have seen fit to ignore ballot initiatives, sets the stage for a United States Supreme Court ruling on par with Roe vs. Wade. The Supreme Court has announced it will rule on same-sex “marriage” in this sitting—exactly ten years after Canada legalized same-sex “marriage.” It is important for Americans to look at what has happened in Canada.

On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex “marriage.” On that day the sun rose as it always does, people went to work, daily Mass was celebrated in Catholic Churches and daily life continued to unfold as it normally does. In the days and months following there was no massive spike in the numbers of same-sex couples getting “married” (it had already been legal in 8 of 10 provinces since 2003), the speculated upon possibility of same-sex “marriage” tourism from the United States never really materialized and the Canadian flag was not changed from the maple leaf to the LGBT rainbow. But something very significant happened with the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Canada and it wasn’t about the freedom of gay people to marry, and it wasn’t really about marriage.

July 20, 2005 marked a very significant step towards totalitarianism in Canada.

Free speech, the rights of parents, the right to preach and practise one’s religion and the worn and tattered fibers of normative decency were all deeply damaged. With the legalization of same-sex “marriage” what had been aberrant only a few years earlier became entrenched as a legal right, and what had been a normal and natural view of sexuality had been reduced to the retrograde thinking of hate crime dinosaurs.

Read the rest here

Two Men Marry- and the Gay Activists are Fuming

So two blokes get married in New Zealand and the gay activists don’t like it because it undermines– wait for it– marriage. You see these guys are heterosexual. So, ummm, if marriage is supposed to be available to everyone regardless of their sexual preferences, what is their problem?

Bill Muhlenberg writes:


Heteros Biting Back

This is an absolute classic! I love it! It just makes my day. I could not have made any of this stuff up. Sweeeeet. So what’s it all about? Well, let me tell you: homosexual activists are fuming in New Zealand, because two males are about to get married.

So?? Well, the happy couple happen to be heterosexual. And for that, the homosexual brigade is spitting chips and going absolutely nutzo. Yes you heard me right. Just when you thought all this madness could not get any worse, now we have homosexualists upset about, and discriminating against, those with other lifestyle choices.

Bizarre as. My mind is still reeling! But hey, I am not making this up. Here is how the story goes:

Read the rest here

Let the Separation Come- Michael Brown

Michael Brown says that the church will divide over gay “marriage” and that this is not a bad thing.

Let the Separation Come

Dr. Michael Brown
Dr. Michael Brown

As much I as I am constantly tackling controversial subjects, I am also working for the unity of the body, trying to major on the majors on my radio show (which reaches quite a diverse audience) and often interacting privately with those with whom I differ. Yet I recognize that sometimes division for the sake of truth can be healthy. Now is one of those times.

This past Wednesday, May 14, I gave a lecture at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., from noon to 1 p.m. It was also aired via live webcast, and the talk focused on issues related to my latest book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?

Shortly before the lecture, I was informed that at the exact same time and also live online, there would be a panel discussing Matthew Vines’ new book, God and the Gay Christian, with participation from Rachel Held Evans, Tony Jones and Jay Bakker, all of whom highly praised the book.

What excellent timing, and what an excellent opportunity to compare and contrast these two very different views. (For the record, my book is not a response to Matthew’s book, and the fact they came out at roughly the same time is providential rather than planned.)

One view says that while God deeply loves all people and offers them redemption in Jesus, under no circumstances would He ever bless or approve of two men (or two women) having sex together.

The other views says that under the right circumstances, God would bless and approve of two men (or two women) having sex. (For those who think that sex is not the issue, bear in mind that one of the major arguments made by same-sex “marriage” advocates like Matthew Vines is that it’s better for gays to be able to “marry” than to burn with lust, based on a serious misapplication of 1 Corinthians 7.)

Without a doubt, this issue will become a great dividing line in the church, and I, for one, welcome it, since it points to a much deeper divide in our approach to God, His Word and the people He wants to redeem. Ultimately, it will separate those who put God first and ask, “How can I fulfill His desires?” from those who put themselves first and ask, “How can He fulfill my desires?” (Although some will take extreme offense to this statement, if you analyze the major “gay Christian” arguments, they often boil down to this perspective.)

Read the full article here

City Council Demands Churches Conduct Same-Sex Weddings

 

 

Here’s the wash-up of “gay marriage”. No matter how much they promise freedom of religious practice for churches, no matter how much churches are promised to be exempt under the law, the pressure to buckle under just keeps increasing. It’s happening in the U.S. and now the U.K. If they win in Australia it will happen here too.

City Council Demands Churches Conduct Same-Sex Weddings

gay marriage
(Stefano Bolognini/Creative Commons)

A local council in the U.K. has been forced to apologize after issuing a letter that incorrectly demanded churches be licensed to perform same-sex marriages.

Essex County Council wrote to all churches in the county registered as wedding venues telling them that with “immediate effect” they “must” be licensed to “conduct same sex marriages.”

The words immediate and same were bold and underlined, with the latter also capitalized.

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute says the council’s letter shows the need for churches to know their legal rights.

He says, “There is no legal reason whatsoever for churches to stop holding marriages in the ways they always have. They are free to do so.”

The Christian Institute has produced a new free legal guide, which gives reassurance that churches are well within their rights to say no to same-sex marriages.

“The behavior of Essex County Council goes to show why churches need to know their legal rights, because bureaucrats who want to push for gay marriage will try and go beyond the law,” warns Calvert.

He adds, “We want to be clear that Christians still have the right to express their belief that marriage is between a man and woman. Christians have every reason to be confident and bold in upholding the truth about marriage.”

“This is just the kind of thing we feared would happen,” says Colin Hart, campaign director of the Coalition for Marriage, which spearheaded opposition to the introduction of same-sex marriage.

“If this has already happened in Essex, there is a real danger that this kind of pressure will be applied by unelected officials across the country,” he warns.

The letter “lifts the lid on the Orwellian future that this ill-thought-through law creates,” Hart says.

Read the full story here

Hey gay rights fascists: in spite of your Mozilla victory, you will still lose- Matt Walsh

Matt Walsh writes:

Hey gay rights fascists: in spite of your Mozilla victory, you will still lose

imagesCAKM5P4C
Dear gay rights militants, dear progressive tyrants, dear liberal fascists, dear haters of free speech, dear crusaders for ideological conformity, dear left wing bullies:

You will lose.

I know you’ve got legions of sycophants kowtowing to you these days, and the rest you’ve set out to destroy — but you will lose.

So, you’ve tracked another dissident and skinned him alive. You’ve made an example ofBrendan Eich, and now you dance joyously around his disemboweled carcass. You have his head on a spike, and you consider this a conquest in your eternal crusade to eradicate diversity and punish differing opinions. You launched your millionth campaign of intimidation, and now another good man has been dragged through the mud, to the sounds of taunting and jeering and death threats.

You found out that the CEO of Mozilla gave a few dollars to support a pro-traditional marriage ballot measure several years ago, and you proceeded to publicly tar and feather him until he was forced to ‘resign’ in disgrace.

You again chose to forgo debate, in favor of coercion and bullying.

You again attempted to end the ‘gay rights’ argument by defrocking your opponent.

Hey, good for you.

Enjoy the spoils of your cowardice.

It won’t last.

Read the rest of the article here

Good News From the High Court

I don’t suppose this will deter those people who think they have the right to redefine marriage to the detriment of the nation, but it is very good news.

From the ABC:

High Court throws out ACT’s same-sex marriage laws

Updated 6 minutes ago

Same-sex couples who wed in the ACT will have their marriages annulled after the High Court ruled against the laws.

A total of 27 couples, including some from interstate, used the law to tie the knot after it came into effect last weekend.

But today the High Court in Canberra unanimously ruled that the laws were inconsistent with the Federal Marriage Act, and were therefore unconstitutional.

The ruling is a victory for the Commonwealth, which had launched the appeal against the laws.

The ACT had argued that its laws could sit beside the federal legislation because it had defined a different type of marriage between same-sex couples.

The High Court delivered its decision early to give certainty to those wanting to use the law, but said it might be some time before a full judgement was released.