Bobby Jindal: No Government Coercion Based on Marriage

April 23, 2015

by Maggie Gallagher


Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (photo credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0)

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (photo credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0)

Gov. Jindal has taken to the most prominent enemy territory he can find, the op-ed pages of the old grey lady herself, to say: “no retreat baby, no surrender”*:

In Indiana and Arkansas, large corporations recently joined left-wing activists to bully elected officials into backing away from strong protections for religious liberty. It was disappointing to see conservative leaders so hastily retreat on legislation that would simply allow for an individual or business to claim a right to free exercise of religion in a court of law.

There are two primaries going on simultaneously: the money primary and the voter primary.  Jindal knows which side he is on:

I plan in this legislative session to fight for passage of the Marriage and Conscience Act.

The legislation would prohibit the state from denying a person, company or nonprofit group a license, accreditation, employment or contract — or taking other “adverse action” — based on the person or entity’s religious views on the institution of marriage.

Some corporations have already contacted me and asked me to oppose this law. I am certain that other companies, under pressure from radical liberals, will do the same. They are free to voice their opinions, but they will not deter me.

The Marriage and Conscience Act prevents the government from punishing anyone because they refuse to participate in a marriage against their conscience. It is viewpoint neutral; that fab gay caterer doesn’t have to help faithful Catholics get married either.

Kudos, kudos, kudos to Jindal. Who else will step up to the plate? It is only the question of whether the Judeo-Christian ethic in America will be tolerated or whether government will be used to punish and strip the livelihoods of people who cannot in conscience serve a particular marriage.

Nationally, the pledge would be to fight for the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act.

Who, besides me, will follow where Jindal leads?  Please share this post with as many people as you can.

Maggie Gallagher is a senior fellow at American Principles in Action.

*Bruce Springsteen is for gay marriage yes he is I know.


Maggie Gallagher is a senior fellow at the American Principles Project.

Archive: Maggie Gallagher

129 comments on “Bobby Jindal: No Government Coercion Based on Marriage”

  • Susanmup says:

    Hello friends!
    I am an official representative of private company which deals with all kinds of written work (essay, coursework, dissertation, presentation, report, etc) in short time.
    We are ready to offer a free accomplishment of written work hoping for further cooperation and honest feedback about our service.
    This offer has limited quantities!!!
    Details on our website:
    https://fixxen.com

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    Sexual attraction is, for many people, an immutable behavior. And celibacy (see Catholic priests) is not a behavior option for many.
    Again I note your fixation with gay men and not women. Lesbians have never transmitted HIV, not once, unlike millions of heterosexual couples (see Africa), so they must be God’s Chosen People by your “logic”.
    You appear to be just a bigot looking for rationales for your bigotry. Just like the KKK members I grew up with. I know your type.

  • cahake says:

    AlanfromBigEasy cahake DimensioT Nor did I SAY that interracial marriage is immutable, so why are you making that point? 

    Of course, virtually NO behavior—the act of marrying included—is immutable (with the possible exception of involuntary behaviors like epileptic seizures). That is, virtually ALL behaviors (again, with the possible exception of involuntary behaviors like epileptic seizures) are a CHOICE—controllable and freely chosen by an act of human free will.

    And, as I said before (and which you’ve apparently twisted/misconstrued), race is an inborn, immutable, unchosen, uncontrollable, and morally benign/neutral TRAIT, whereas engaging in homosexual acts, for which God and our fellow man hold us accountable, is a behavior CHOICE that necessarily, as a freely chosen behavior, is NOT inborn, NOT immutable, NOT unchosen, NOT uncontrollable, and arguably NOT moral benign/neutral according the world’s major religions. 

    So again, what’s your point? Are you trying to say that people are irresistibly compelled to engage in homosexual acts? That they/we have no free will to choose our behavior? That we/they don’t have the power—and the moral responsibility—to control ourselves/themselves by abstaining from behaviors that are immoral and/or self-destructive, like homosexuality? (Google gay men’s HIV/AIDS rates for just one example of the destructive nature of anal intercourse, a dominant feature of homosexuality, as the human rectum—unlike a woman’s vagina—was not designed to accommodate a penis; its lining tears, breaks, and bleeds, allowing for rampant spread of STD’s.) 

    Or what IS your point???

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    cahake DimensioT 
    Interracial marriage is NOT “immutable” so your “logic” to claim that racial bigotry is not OK and gay bigotry is OK falls apart.

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    Dain B 
    Your arguments are not as sound as those before you that decried the sin of race mixing.
    Race may be immutable – and although there were de facto laws against being black – there were laws agianst both inter-racial sex and inter-racial marriage.
    Interracial sex and marriage are NOT immutable behaviors.

    Both sex and marriage are elected behaviors, they are not immutable. And they are less oppressive because most whites do find some whites sexually attractive most blacks do find some other blacks sexually attractive. So both races can easily have lawful intercourse and marriage.

    Just as you can easily not commit the sin of sex with your wife during her period, or not wear polyester/cotton blend clothing.

    A majority of marriages in the United States do not have children – and never planned to have any. So your argument that civil marriage is JUST for procreation is clearly false on the face of it. Just another “castle in the air” logical fallacy to justify your bigotry.

    As a Christian and a Quaker I wholeheartedly denounce your theology, just as I opposed racial bigotry before. Keep your ideas of sin inside your church walls and in your own bedroom.

    Don’t you DARE have sex with your wife during her period !!  That is a sin you can control. And donate most of your clothes, all the mixed cloth ones.

    You have created this false sophistry to justify your bigotry. Because that is your driving force. Hatred and bigotry with piety as just a cover.

  • cahake says:

    DimensioT cahake If the situation you suggest were a regularly occurring event, DimensioT, it would indeed be an issue. And such a religious business owner would have no scriptural basis for discriminating on the basis of race, which is an inherited, immutable, uncontrollable, and morally benign TRAIT, unlike homosexuality, which is instead is NOT 100% heritable (NO studies exist to prove that it is), and is in some cases mutable (changeable, even “fluid,” as many queer theorists admit). But most important, homosexuality is constituted centrally by subjective desire and volitional activity, i.e., freely chosen and controllable BEHAVIOR, which is perfectly legitimate to assess morally. Much better analogues for homosexuality are polyamory or consensual adult incest.

    And since, according to case law, the situation you suggest is NOT a problem in the U.S. (in fact, no state Religious Freedom Restoration Act has EVER been used to defend discrimination against homosexuals), and would not be sustained in court, your example is irrelevant—a red herring.

  • cahake says:

    coyote Dain B AlanfromBigEasy What are you talking about? Such instances, to whatever extent they existed—and I’ve never heard of ANY—were the rarest of exceptions only, not typical, and certainly not the norm. NO cultural heritage is established by flukes and exceptions of that sort. Please give me a break . . .

  • cahake says:

    AlanfromBigEasy They are the same in the ways that truly matter? Are you kidding, AlanfromBigEasy? 

    In THE most important way, namely, with regard to that essential, distinguishing component of natural marriage—its inherent sexual complementarity along with reproductive potential (typically)—same-sex “marriage” differs drastically from natural marriage, but to you that’s not important? That singular feature of natural marriage is the ONLY reason government even has an interest in regulating (being involved with) marriage at all in the first place. For the good of society, government should encourage the optimal and most stable type of relationship for children that may be born of the marital union. And that type of relationship is the God-ordained, 5,000-year-old universal, societal norm—natural marriage. Remove that essential feature, and marriage can just about be anything we want it to be—with multiple partners, between incestuous partners, or whatever . . . and will ultimately come to mean nothing. Is that what you want?

  • cahake says:

    coyote Dain B AlanfromBigEasy How are they not alike? Are you kidding coyote? 

    In THE most important way, namely, with regard to that essential, distinguishing component of natural marriage—its inherent sexual complementarity along with reproductive potential (typically)—same-sex “marriage” differs drastically from natural marriage, but to you that’s not important? That singular feature of natural marriage is the ONLY reason government even has an interest in regulating (being involved with) marriage at all in the first place. For the good of society, government should encourage the optimal and most stable type of relationship for children that may be born of the marital union. And that type of relationship is the God-ordained, 5,000-year-old universal, societal norm—natural marriage. Remove that essential feature, and marriage can just about be anything we want it to be—with multiple partners, between incestuous partners, or whatever . . . and will ultimately come to mean nothing. Is that what you want?

  • cahake says:

    AlanfromBigEasy Dain B I do note that people of your persuasion are particularly good at name-calling, using a plethora of terms like “bigot” and even manufactured ones likes “homophobic.” (I also oppose incest, adultery, fornication, etc., but no one is calling me an “incestophobe,” an “adulterphobe,” or a “forniphobe” for so doing. Why is that?) Nor are practitioners of those sexual sins loudly celebrating their immorality with the likes of “Incest Pride” or “Adultery Pride” parades, rallies, or other such events. Why is it that homosexuals, almost exclusively, are compelled to flaunt their disordered sexuality by publicly flouting the conventions of traditional Judeo-Christian morality? Why do they expect—no, DEMAND—to be granted an exemption from societal censure and stigmatization when those who practice many of these other sins do not presume to do so? Why do homosexuals fancy themselves to be special in this way? What or who has granted them this imagined “right”?

    BTW, we as Christians (as well as followers of Judaism and Islam) ARE as offended by lesbianism and “women marrying women” as we are by “men marrying men,” in accordance with God’s disapproval of such behavior as noted in Romans 1:24-28. Satisfied?

    Briefly, two other points: 

    Interracial marriage is NOT analogous to same-sex marriage. And that’s because, for the umpteenth time, homosexuality is not analogous to race. Race is a 100% heritable (genetic) TRAIT that is absolutely immutable (unchangeable) in ALL cases. Furthermore, race is not constituted by subjective desire or volitional (freely chosen) acts. In contrast, homosexuality is NOT 100% heritable (NO studies exist to prove that it is) and is in some cases mutable (changeable, even “fluid,” as many queer theorists admit). But most important, homosexuality is constituted centrally by subjective desire and volitional activity, i.e., freely chosen behavior, which is perfectly legitimate to assess morally. Much better analogues for homosexuality are polyamory or consensual adult incest.

    What?? “…in all the important ways except natural childbirth they are [alike]”?? So, in THE most important way, namely, with regard to that essential, distinguishing component of natural marriage—its inherent sexual complementarity along with reproductive potential (typically)—same-sex “marriage” differs from natural marriage, but to you that’s not “important”??? That singular feature of natural marriage is the ONLY reason government even has an interest in regulating (being involved with) marriage at all in the first place. For the good of society, government should encourage the optimal and most stable type of relationship for children that may be born of the marital union. And that type of relationship is the God-ordained, 5,000-year-old universal, societal norm—natural marriage. Remove that essential feature, and marriage can just about be anything we want it to be—with multiple partners, between incestuous partners, or whatever . . . and will ultimately come to mean nothing.

  • coyote says:

    Dain B AlanfromBigEasy Oh, and the original settlers in this country took same-sex wives and husbands.  What about their cultural heritage?

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    Only bigots do not see that they are the same in the ways that truly matter.
    BTW, why the hang-up about two men, but not two women ?

  • coyote says:

    Dain B AlanfromBigEasy It’s not simple.  How are they not alike?  Two people who love one another, who want to commit before God and man to love and honor one another for the rest of their lives.

    Who are YOU, Dain, and who is Government to tell a church who they can and cannot marry?

  • Dain B says:

    AlanfromBigEasy If they are not alike, why does the law force us to treat them as if they WERE alike? If two men attempting a one-flesh union is not the same as a true one-flesh union, why are you pushing for laws that force people to pretend it IS the same thing? I think it is because you are either a liar. or else you have a blindness of the mind and just sincerely don’t know what’s true. Either way, the truth is that you are the one forcing your irrational, illogical, untrue beliefs upon others.

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    Dain B 

    Bob Jones University did not allow inter-racial dating until 2000, after George W Bush spoke there (So obviously a good venue for conservatives).

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/marchweb-only/53.0.html

    Just because the Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia FORCED the State of Virginia (and 15 other states with similar laws) to issue civil marriage licenses to inter-racial couples, does NOT make a marriage between a black and a white like a marriage between two whites (or two blacks).  A 1970s, 1980s or 1990s graduate of Bob Jones University could well have a sincerely held religious belief that an inter-racial marriage is wrong in the eyes of God and refuse to “bake a cake” for their wedding.

    Should the government punish him or her ?

    I do note that homophobic bigots concentrate on “two men marrying” and not “two women marrying”.  Is that because your homophobia is stronger for gay men than women ?

    The issue is not “are they alike” (although in all the important ways except natural childbirth they are) but should the State of X issue a civil marriage license. And should bigots (racial bigots or homophobic bigots) be allowed to discriminate in their “public square” businesses ?

  • Dain B says:

    AlanfromBigEasy Well, maybe it’s a reality in your world, although you say you “remember it as a child”. I have never heard such a sermon. I have never even heard OF such a sermon in my life. Google is not reality. Anybody can put any lie online, that doesn’t mean it happened in real life. So, if it really is still happening, that’s wrong. But in my experience, and the experience of people I know, I have never actually heard of this. If and when it ever becomes a problem again, we’ll deal with it. It’s not one now. The problem today is that people are being forced to pretend 2 men are the same as husband and wife. And they’re not.

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    Dain B DimensioT cahake  This is Bob Jones Sr, founder of Bob Jones University, Easter Sermon, 1960

    http://www.drslewis.org/camille/2013/03/15/is-segregation-scriptural-by-bob-jones-sr-1960/ 

    I heard a sermon against race mixing from a large (#2 in Tuscaloosa) Southern Baptist Convention church (Calvary Baptist of Tuscaloosa) as a child.

    Even today, Google “sermon race mixing” and find the “sincerely held Christian beliefs” of today.

  • Dain B says:

    hamybear PhilWeingart coyote “Marriage equality” is a slogan, not a law. 2 men do not equal husband and wife. So the slogan “marriage equality” is actually closer to fraud than reality.

  • Dain B says:

    @ewe You are demonstrating yourself to be a liar. It doesn’t help your case.

  • Dain B says:

    hamybear cahake adambravo Chrisx2ra Adoption exists to provide parents for a child who has lost them somehow. Adoption does not negate the rights of a biological parent unless a child is forcibly adopted away from his parents, which would actually be more like kidnapping. So I do not think your comparison of adoption with homosexual “procreation” is logically coherent.

  • Dain B says:

    adambravo Chrisx2ra Nobody said procreation is the sole goal of marriage. But it is the structure that we as a society have developed to best handle the procreative reality inherent in the man-woman bond. A procreative reality which does not exist in same-sex couplings. Different types of relationship would logically imply different structures are necessary to best serve their needs. Dan Savage says male couples don’t really need to be monogamous, and he may have a point. Since it is not possible for homosexual male couplings to produce children, either inside or outside the relationship, it is not a concern that a man and his boyfriend will be hit up for child support like Bill Clinton always worries he will be. So even if faithfulness is desired in gay relationships, the reasoning and the situations are different, and thus a different kind of structure would be in order.

  • Dain B says:

    adambravo PhilWeingart The blood test can also indicate incompatible blood types which could be a problem during pregnancy. Or so some doctor’s website I found in one minute says. So your research needs a little work. Oh, and pregnancy is only a possibility with man-woman couples, which is the relevant piece of data here. Yes I know you claim your octogenarian father married well after his potency expired. But you can’t use a weird exceptional circumstance to try to ignore the obvious reasoning behind the standards for marriage.

  • Dain B says:

    hamybear cahake coyote PhilWeingart That’s a good point hamybear. One difference though is the cake is not an official celebration of gluttony, whereas a gay ceremony cake is an official celebration of sodomy. That fat lady is already on a diet and she’s only going to eat one little piece and give the rest to her gay neighbors. So judge not if you don’t have all the info. People like you who don’t really believe the bible shouldn’t try to tell other people how to live by it. Isn’t that what you’re against? Telling people how to live? We’re not telling you how to live. Do what you want. Just don’t force us to participate. Because that is just wrong and, actually, very hypocritical on your part who claim you just want to be left alone, yet you torment others.

  • Dain B says:

    adambravo cahake Well if you want to chase wild hypotheticals, are you going to marry your dog next?

  • Dain B says:

    coyote PhilWeingart They do no such thing and you know it – your church can marry whoever they want. What a liar!

  • Dain B says:

    coyote Are you high? The current reality is that gays are trying to force Christians to pretend 2 men are the same as husband and wife, even though they aren’t. The issue is people are being pressured to endorse sin, as if it was the good of true marriage. Marriage may not be religious for you, but it is for some people. This is called freedom of religion: you cannot force me to go against my religion – especially when the baker next door will bake your gay cake at a discount so you’re not even inconvenienced. You just want to force YOUR will on others, with utter disregard that it violates their religion and their conscience. Some people will probably be intimidated and knuckle under. But some won’t, and they are the people the first amendment is there to protect. Or was supposed to be.

  • Dain B says:

    AlanfromBigEasy WashingtonWallStComplex He’s simply saying 2 men are not the same as husband and wife. And he’s right.

  • Dain B says:

    hamybear WashingtonWallStComplex AlanfromBigEasy Gays have the same rights everybody else has. The problem you people will continue to have no matter what kooky legal decisions you manage to win is that 2 men are not the same thing as husband and wife, and it is kind of obvious to anybody with two eyes. Or even one eye. Marital benefits evolved for husband and wife. You’re already getting the benefits designed for a different kind of relationship than yours. What more do you want? You want to be the thought police and force other people to pretend 2 men are the same thing as husband and wife. The problem is, they aren’t.

  • Dain B says:

    @ewe Everybody agrees husband and wife make a marriage. That is a no-brainer even gays understand. Only about half the population thinks 2 men are the same thing as husband and wife. You think you can be the thought police and force people to pretend 2 men are the same thing as husband and wife you’re not going to succeed unless you lobotomize people because the truth is obvious.

  • Dain B says:

    @ewe Eww. So you want to haul people into court because it is against their religion to pretend 2 men are the same as husband and wife. That’s nutty.

  • Dain B says:

    DimensioT cahake Your hypothetical case is interesting, but the problem is there is no religion I know of that believes it is a sin to mix races. Furthermore, race is a settled issue in American law and culture. Pretending two men are the same as husband and wife is not a settled issue.

  • cahake says:

    DimensioT cahake hamybear coyote Technically speaking, though marriage may be legally classified as a “right,” it is nonetheless NOT something that is automatically owed, as a virtual birthright, to anyone and everyone who seeks it or wishes to engage in it, in the same way that an “unalienable right” (cf. the Declaration of Independence) is guaranteed to all U.S. citizens. Rather, all who wish to be so joined must meet certain criteria (a few examples were listed in a previous post) to validly qualify for true marriage. It is in that sense to which I was referring, and in that sense, marriage is but a privilege in this country.

  • cahake says:

    DimensioT cahake Chrisx2ra hamybear PhilWeingart coyote Any one of the appeals/defenses I listed, alone, might be insufficient to persuade some people, DimensioT, but it is my experience that only those of an atheistic/agnosticbent, insist relentlessly for absolute proof of matters of faith that Christianity—as well as the other major world religions—along with tradition, biology, anatomy, common sense, scholarly/philosophical writings and observations, and reason, COMBINED, have sufficiently demonstrated to countless others through the ages. Stubbornly unconvinced of what’s self-evident to most people (and has been, for centuries), you demand some sort of scientific proof of natural marriage’s superiority. The word of God is not enough, because you don’t believe in my faith. (Never mind that most of the world’s major religions, as just mentioned above, also subscribe solely to natural marriage.) Similarly, tradition, biology, anatomy all fall by the wayside, judged by you to be likewise insufficient, because you claim they are fallacies that are “not persuasive.”

    Though a growing body of research is just now starting to emerge demonstrating that children of gay “parents” do not do as well as measured by certain social indices (Google it), while male-female marriage has already, for decades, accumulated considerable research evidence to demonstrate its efficacy, you remain “unpersuaded.”

    Do you show such stiff-necked skepticism, I wonder, towards the unproven principles of Darwinism? Towards Einstein’s theory of relativity? Have these concepts been absolutely PROVEN to your satisfaction, yet the universally accepted, cross-cutural definition of marriage since time immemorial, along with the defenses I’ve mentioned, taken collectively, somehow fail to impress you? 

    What WOULD convince you of natural (traditional) marriage’s superiority? 

    What you’re really looking for, and demanding, at root level, is PROOF of God’s very existence, DimensioT. And if you cannot see that in the world around you, with its natural order and irreducible complexity, no human being is going to be able to “prove” His existence to you, any more than you can DISPROVE His existence. Some things are matters of faith. And He will have to enlighten you on that. 

    Keep asking, keep seeking, and ask Him (though you may think Him “non-existent”) to reveal Himself to you, as He’s done for me and so very many others throughout the ages. He wants you to know Him, as well as His [natural] law (which includes His designed intent for marriage, human sexuality, and optimal family structure.) 

    Go in peace, as I shall to continue to strive with you no longer on this matter.

  • DimensioT says:

    cahake hamybear coyote Your claim that marriage is not a right in the United States of America is demonstrably contradicted by United States case law.

    Are you able to explain the apparent discrepancy between your assertion and observable reality?

    Additionally, are you able to demonstrate the existence of the “God” to which you refer, and are you able to explain why tradition is of relevance when appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy?

  • DimensioT says:

    cahake DimensioT Chrisx2ra hamybear PhilWeingart coyote References to a religious textbook are not persuasive to those who do not follow that religious faith.

    Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy, and is not persuasive.

    Appealing to anatomy and biology are appeals to the naturalistic fallacy, and thus are not persuasive.

    “Common sense” led to the belief that objects fell to earth at a rate determined by their weight, when actual study showed that weight did not affect the rate of descent.  Common sense often leads to erroneous conclusions, and is not persuasive.

    Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and is not persuasive.

    You seem to be arguing that if I only accept research and data, rather than appeals to logical fallacies, that I do not wish to be convinced.  This would be an admission that your position cannot be justified with research and data and thus that it may only be argued for with faulty reasoning.

  • cahake says:

    hamybear First, it’s not fair or accurate to compare Memories Pizza’s “public stance” on gay “marriage” with that of, say, IBM. The owners of Memories Pizza did NOT go on the offensive, taking it upon themselves to boldly announce, unsolicited, that they could not, in good conscience, support or serve a gay “marriage.” (Who, after all, has pizza for their wedding or reception, anyway? Why would Memories Pizza’s owners even bring it up?) The ONLY reason any of us know anything about their stance on the issue is because a nosy, provocative reporter—probably targeting Memories Pizza as a known Christian establishment, to stir up trouble—went to its owners, the O’ Connor family, to inquire about their position on the matter. And they, humbly but unashamedly, admitted they would have to decline such an opportunity.

    Apple (with openly gay CEO Tim Cook), IBM, and other corporations, on the other hand, immediately came out—no reporters had to seek out their CEO’s—to publicly criticize Indiana’s proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act, even though it was modeled upon a perfectly accepted federal piece of legislation that was passed back in 1993, co-sponsored by liberal Democrat Charles Schumer (D, New York) and signed into law with much praise by liberal Democrat, Pres. Bill Clinton. It was NOT intended to be a SWORD—an offensive weapon to go after any particular group of people (gays, for example) for any particular reason; instead, it was intended only as a SHIELD—a strictly defensive weapon to be used in the event that the government unnecessarily would force someone to act against their deeply held personal religious beliefs. America was settled and founded upon just such a right, and it is codified into the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. So it strikes me as being exceedingly ill-advised that such corporations should make the unforced error of discriminating against people of faith by opposing, unsolicited, their legitimate, constitutionally guaranteed free-exercise-of-religion rights.

    Furthermore, just what makes these corporations suddenly come forth to announce, quite publicly and forcefully, their views on ANY controversial issue, especially one as polarizing as homosexuality/gay “marriage”? Do these same companies routinely take a public stand on any other relevant cultural issues? Do you—or does anyone—know, for example, what Apple’s position is on abortion? On immigration? On Common Core? zOn military intervention with the forces of ISIS? On raising taxes, corporate or otherwise? Of course not! Why, then, on just this one ultra-controversial issue, does Apple—or any other corporation—feel irresistibly compelled to announce their stance, and bully their opponents into acquiescence as well? 

    Why don’t they butt-out of this issue, just like they do ALL the others, or jump in with both feet and start taking advocacy positions, publicly, on everything?

    I’ll let YOU answer that one, “hamybear.”

  • cahake says:

    hamybear cahake SammyinSeattle coyote As I said in an earlier post, “hamybear,” in response to, basically, your same question/comment:

    According to everything God says about homosexual practice, which is consistently condemned and forbidden throughout the Old Testament AND the New Testament, it a just such a particularly egregious sin, one of the few that is actually called an “abomination,” something “detestable” that is an outright rejection of God’s intended complementary design (i.e., male-female, uniting the two “halves”/genders of humanity) for human sexuality. Biology, anatomy, and common sense all corroborate the fact that God intended heterosexuality to be the only accepted model—the norm—for marriage. (See Genesis 2:24 and Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-6 for God’s pronouncement regarding marriage: a man shall leave his mother and father and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. THAT”s marriage, God’s way.)

    Unbridled homosexual perversion—not gluttony/obesity—was so offensive to God to cause two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, to be completely destroyed in Genesis 19. And, in Romans 1:24-32, we see that rampant and accepted homosexual sin, as a form of idolatry within a culture—not gluttony/obesity—is a harbinger of the impending doom of that morally decadent culture. And the United States is beginning, increasingly, to fit the description contained in those verses. 

    So, though YOU may see gluttony/obesity as a “huge issue” in America, the matter on MY heart is homosexuality, a far more egregious sin relevant to the unravelling of our once-great culture. That is my prerogative, not subject to your approval.

    And, “hamybear,” in case you haven’t noticed, unlike homosexuals, gluttons are not a particularly powerful special interest group in America. They do NOT have a political agenda per se, nor do they have lobbying or advocacy groups (like the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, etc.) representing them, agitating for them, bullying for them, getting legislation passed for them, as the LGBTQI ( . . . ) crowd does. Nor do they (nor do many other groups of sinners) have special celebrations, parades, or other such events to actually celebrate their particular sin in the same fashion that the gays and lesbians (and bisexuals, and “trannies,” and queer/questioning, and . . . ) do. (Have you noticed any “Gluttony Pride” parades lately, or perhaps an “Incest Pride” rally somewhere? I didn’t think so.)

    And perhaps most relevantly, unlike those in the LGBTQI (…) faction, people who engage in glutton do NOT pose a particular threat to the legitimate religious freedom rights of people of faith. No Christian wedding vendors (cake-bakers, florists, photographers/videographers, musicians, etc.) are being sued, fined, jailed, run out of business, or otherwise bullied and intimidated by any “gluttons” as far as I know, but the same most certainly CANNOT be said regarding homosexuals and the demands they are making for their gay “wedding” ceremonies. Baronelle Stutzman, Aaron and Melissa Klein, Jack Phillips, and the O’ Connor family of Memories Pizza are just the most recent victims of gay “marriage” bullying that immediately spring to mind. Google them to read their stories. 

    So, does that give you just a smidgeon of an idea why I might 
    take such a “hard stance” against homosexuality? Maybe it’s because God does, too, and it’s an especially relevant—and critical—issue in our culture today, throughout the world. The survival of our very culture—and the religious freedom it supposedly guarantees—hinges upon how we continue to deal with this issue. 

    And finally, I offer this in response to your question, “If a cake baker sells a cake to a fat couple, aren’t they participating in their sin?” No, “hamybear,” the cake-baker is not; only the glutton is eating the cake (if that is even a sin in and of itself), and he is doing that by his own choosing, by an act of HIS own free will and not under compulsion from the baker-seller. 

    Indeed, unlike homosexuals who are FORCING Christian wedding vendors to participate in their blasphemous “weddings” by providing their services, thus implying approval/endorsement, the baker in your scenario is NOT forcing anyone to come to him or to buy his cake; that is totally an act of the gluttons’ own free will, and to whatever extent it is a sin that God wishes to address, He will hold the gluttons themselves accountable, not every other human being who, in any remote or tangential way, might touch their lives.

    Following your logic to its conclusion, you might as well ask Christians to shut themselves up and live as hermits, lest something—anything—they do become part of a chain that somehow is eventually connected with a sin that someone freely chooses to commit. Given the nutritional deficiencies/harms of sugar, gluten, sodium, trans-fats, cholesterol, saturated fats, etc., etc., a Christian baker could hardly sell ANY product (to anyone) that couldn’t be said to cause some kind of harm to the buyer’s health, or that might precipitate an act of sin in consuming such food. 

    Your logic thus breaks down.

  • cahake says:

    hamybear WashingtonWallStComplex AlanfromBigEasy And no one is denying you or anyone in your family of any legitimate basic rights, “hamybear.” Here in America, you can freely vote, own a home, work a job, drive a car, expect police protection from (and legal assistance for) any crime that may be committed against you, etc. 

    And as far as marriage is concerned, we must remember that, in this country, marriage is a privilege, NOT a right. As such, it is true that those wishing to marry must meet certain requirements. For one thing, they must be of a certain minimum age. For another, they cannot be closely related by blood. And for yet another (until just recently, in a world now going insane), they need to be of the opposite sex, a convention followed as the moral consensus of millennia for thousands of years across various continents and throughout diverse cultures, and comporting with virtually all major religions (NOT just mine), in accordance with God’s natural law, simple anatomy, biology, and common sense. 

    So homosexual people can indeed marry, just like anyone else, provided they meet the criteria of the classic definition: they must marry someone of the opposite sex. They have NO right to re-define God’s ordained institution, transcendent as it is, for all the rest of society, opening the door for endless further redefinitions, according to the variety of perverse sexual “preferences” of innumerable other disenfranchised sexual minorities.

    By the way, it should also be noted that, contrary to what you suggest, “my” disagreeing with you does not in any way cause you to forfeit any of your rights. It is only when our legislators (or courts) come to a consensus regarding a particular issue, subsequently codifying and enacting that consensus into Iaw, does it have any bearing upon our lives as individuals. You have nothing to fear from me as an individual, only from government-enforced policy that’s not to your liking. And I am not accountable for that . . .

  • cahake says:

    hamybear cahake coyote And no one is denying them of any “rights.” 

    Marriage in this country is a privilege, not a right. As such, those wishing to marry must meet certain requirements. For one thing, they must be of a certain minimum age. For another, they cannot be closely related by blood. And for another (until just recently, in a world going insane), they need to be of the opposite sex, a convention followed as the moral consensus of millennia for thousands of years across various continents and throughout diverse cultures, in accordance with God’s natural law, simple anatomy, biology, and common sense. 

    So homosexual people can indeed marry, just like anyone else, provided they meet the criteria of the classic definition: they must marry someone of the opposite sex. They have NO right to re-define God’s ordained institution, transcendent as it is, for all the rest of society.

  • cahake says:

    DimensioT cahake Chrisx2ra hamybear PhilWeingart coyote DimensioT cahake Chrisx2ra hamybear PhilWeingart coyote Let’s stop playing  games. Your mind is not really open to the possibility of natural law dictating the universal definition of marriage, or much of anything else.

    If God’s pronouncement in Genesis 2:24 (echoed by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:4-6) does not persuade you; if the inarguable convention of male-female marriage as the overwhelmingly dominant model for matrimony over countless centuries (5,000 years of recorded human history, by many accounts) and worldwide across continents and throughout diverse cultures does not persuade you; if simple human anatomy does not persuade you; if biology does not persuade you; if common sense does not persuade you; if the minds and writings of men like the aforementioned William Blackstone regarding natural law do not persuade you; if the reasoning that the two “halves”(genders) of humanity might best be coupled in marriage to create a sort duality or “completeness” (i.e., complementarity) to the union that also benefits children born to that coupling (by providing a role model from each gender) does not persuade you—if not one of these points singly or in [any] combination with others persuades you that male-female (complementary, reproductively capable by type) marriage is the consummate model for true marriage, human sexuality, and optimal family structure, DimensioT, then you don’t really want to be so persuaded and are not truly open to being so. 

    And I will not strive with you further on this point, further wasting my time and yours.

    “There are none so blind as those who will not [allow themselves to] see . . . “

  • cahake says:

    DimensioT cahake Chrisx2ra hamybear PhilWeingart coyote Let’s stop playing  games. Your mind is not really open to the possibility of natural law dictating the universal definition of marriage, or much of anything else.

    If God’s pronouncement in Genesis 2:24 (echoed by Jesus Himself in Matthew 10:4-6) does not persuade you; if the inarguable convention of male-female marriage as the overwhelmingly dominant model for matrimony over countless centuries (5,000 years of recorded human history, by many accounts) and worldwide across continents and throughout diverse cultures does not persuade you; if simple human anatomy does not persuade you; If biology does not persuade you; if common sense does not persuade you; if the minds and writings of men like William Blackstone (aforementioned) regarding natural law do not persuade you; if the reasoning that the two “halves”(genders) of humanity might best be coupled in marriage to create a sort of “completeness” (i.e., complementarity) to the union that also benefits children born to that coupling (by providing a role model from each gender) does not persuade you—if not one of these points singly or in [any] combination with others persuades you that male-female (complementary, reproductively capable by type) marriage is the consummate model for true marriage, human sexuality, and optimal family structure, DimensioT, then you don’t want to be so persuaded and are not open to being so. 

    And I will not strive with you further on this point.

    “There are none so blind as those who will not [allow themselves to] see . . . “

  • DimensioT says:

    cahake DimensioT Chrisx2ra hamybear PhilWeingart coyote I am challenging nothing.  I am merely requesting validation of asserted premises.

    If opposition to same-sex marriage is validated by “laws of nature”, then you should be able to reference documentation of these “laws of nature” that support such a claim.  You have not done so as of yet, however.

  • cahake says:

    DimensioT Chrisx2ra cahake hamybear PhilWeingart coyote Are you living in this world, DimensioT? Are you denying that the our universe is governed by certain laws of nature, both physical and moral?

    Or perhaps you’ve heard of a minor document called the Declaration of Independence? In it, one Thomas Jefferson refers to “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” No doubt he drew this familiar concept from the works of great philosophical minds like those of John Locke and Charles Montesquieu. Later, in the nineteenth century, Sir William Blackstone, the greatest legal mind of his age, further codified such concepts in his major work, the Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–9), an exposition of English common law. 

    Thus greater legal/philosophical minds than yours or mine have, for centuries, accepted the concept of natural law—the “laws of nature” (and of nature’s God.) Do you wish to challenge their thinking or intelligence because yours is greater or more “enlightened”?

  • cahake says:

    hamybear cahake adambravo Chrisx2ra No, of course not. I’ve only maintained that children GENERALLY do best with a mother AND a father, preferably their biological parents. There are exceptions, of course, especially in this fallen world. Even so, God’s original design and intention—children’s biological parents, one from each “half”/gender of humanity to serve as a role model—constitute the best model for parenting/raising children. When that ideal cannot be realized, at least heterosexuality—a parent (or adoptive parent) of each gender—is important, consistent with God’s ordained and intended design for marriage and family structure, as outlined in Genesis 2:24 and echoed by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:4-6.

    Homosexual unions ALWAYS fall short of this generalized  ideal, necessarily depriving children of at least one biological parent. (At least traditional adoptive parents furnish a role model from each gender, comporting with God’s design, though one or both may not be the children’s biological parents.)

  • DimensioT says:

    Chrisx2ra DimensioT cahake hamybear PhilWeingart coyote Where, exactly, are “laws of nature” documented?

  • Chrisx2ra says:

    DimensioT cahake hamybear PhilWeingart coyote You can replace Cakake’s references to the laws of God with the laws of nature.  His argument  would not lose validity.

  • cahake says:

    lenscraft lenscraft  It’s very easy to use a mere 27 words to flatly claim that my preceding post is “a long list of lies.” But it’s not really that simple, lenscraft. If you’re going to make such a bold and all-encompassing accusation, the “burden of proof” is on you to convincingly demonstrate (i.e., PROVE) that what I’ve said is, in fact, nothing but a series of lies. You have yet to do that.
    To wit: Was, for example, Brendan Eich not at one time the CEO of Mozilla? Did he not, in 2008, donate $1,000 towards the passage of Proposition 8, which supported traditional marriage? Was he not then subsequently forced from his position as head of Mozilla by the forces of political (if not moral) correctness because he made this donation? 
    Is Mike Pence not currently the governor of the state of Indiana? After promising to sign into law his state’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—modeled on the Federal version of that same RFRA enacted into law in the U.S. in 1993—was not he, along with the Republican-led legislators of his state senate, bullied/forced/coerced by the forces of political (if not moral) correctness into capitulating to their demands, nullifying, in effect, the religious freedom of expression protections the law had originally sought to enact and substituting for them, instead, special protections for gay/LGBTQI ( . . . ) individuals? (The forces of political correctness in this case, in addition to the “usual suspects” within the LGBTQI ( . . . ) crowd, also consisted of an alarming number of corporations that have nowadays come to be co-opted by the LGBTQI ( . . . ) movement/agenda. Their inverted system of values compels them to elevate “gay rights” over legitimate, First Amendment-guaranteed free-exercise-of-religion rights. Very sad—even outrageous.)
    And to simplify this litany: was I wrong about the O’Connors and their Memories Pizza situation? 
    What about Kelvin Cochran? How was I inaccurate (i.e., “lying,” there?) 
    And Barronelle Stutzman? 
    Or the Kleins? 
    Jack Philips? 
    PROOF of my “lies,” please?

  • cahake says:

    hamybear cahake coyote PhilWeingart As you must know, “hamybear,” with innumerable sins listed in the pages of the Bible and being practiced constantly within our fallen world, it would be impossible for any person to concern himself with ALL of them to the same degree. And while all may be “equal” in the sense that any one of them can separate us from God (till confessed and repented of), they most certainly are NOT equal; some are more egregious than others—and thus bring a greater penalty. Jaywalking, for example, pales in comparison to murder.

    According to everything God says about homosexual practice, which is consistently condemned and forbidden throughout the Old Testament AND the New Testament, it a just such a particularly egregious sin, one of the few that is actually called an “abomination,” something “detestable” that is an outright rejection of God’s intended complementary design (i.e., male-female, uniting the two “halves”/genders of humanity) for human sexuality. Biology, anatomy, and common sense all corroborate the fact that God intended heterosexuality to be the only accepted model—the norm—for marriage. (See Genesis 2:24 and Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-6 for God’s pronouncement regarding marriage: a man shall leave his mother and father and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. THAT”s marriage, God’s way.)

    Unbridled homosexual perversion—not gluttony/obesity—was so offensive to God to cause two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, to be completely destroyed in Genesis 19. And, in Romans 1:24-32, we see that rampant and accepted homosexual sin, as a form of idolatry within a culture—not gluttony/obesity—is a harbinger of the impending doom of that morally decadent culture. And the United States is beginning, increasingly, to fit the description contained in those verses. 

    So, though YOU may see gluttony/obesity as a “huge issue” in America, the matter on MY heart is homosexuality, a far more egregious sin relevant to the unravelling of our once-great culture. That is my prerogative, not subject to your approval.

    And, “hamybear,” in case you haven’t noticed, unlike homosexuals, gluttons are not a particularly powerful special interest group in America. They do NOT have a political agenda per se, nor do they have lobbying or advocacy groups (like the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, etc.) representing them, agitating for them, bullying for them, getting legislation passed for them, as the LGBTQI ( . . . ) crowd does. Nor do they (nor do many other groups of sinners) have special celebrations, parades, or other such events to actually celebrate their particular sin in the same fashion that the gays and lesbians (and bisexuals, and “trannies,” and queer/questioning, and . . . ) do. (Have you noticed any “Gluttony Pride” parades lately, or perhaps an “Incest Pride” rally somewhere? I didn’t think so.)

    And perhaps most relevantly, unlike those in the LGBTQI (…) faction, people who engage in glutton do NOT pose a particular threat to the legitimate religious freedom rights of people of faith. No Christian wedding vendors (cake-bakers, florists, photographers/videographers, musicians, etc.) are being sued, fined, jailed, run out of business, or otherwise bullied and intimidated by any “gluttons” as far as I know, but the same most certainly CANNOT be said regarding homosexuals and the demands they are making for their gay “wedding” ceremonies. Baronelle Stutzman, Aaron and Melissa Klein, Jack Phillips, and the O’ Connor family of Memories Pizza are just the most recent victims of gay “marriage” bullying that immediately spring to mind. Google them to read their stories. 

    So, does that give you just a smidgeon of an idea why I might 
    take such a “hard stance” against homosexuality? Maybe it’s because God does, too, and it’s an especially relevant—and critical—issue in our culture today, throughout the world. The survival of our very culture—and the religious freedom it supposedly guarantees—hinges upon how we continue to deal with this issue. 

    And finally, I offer this in response to your question, “If a cake baker sells a cake to a fat couple, aren’t they participating in their sin?” No, “hamybear,” the cake-baker is not; only the glutton is eating the cake (if that is even a sin in and of itself), and he is doing that by his own choosing, not under compulsion from the baker-seller. 

    Indeed, unlike homosexuals who are FORCING Christian wedding vendors to participate in their blasphemous “weddings” by providing their services, thus implying approval/endorsement, the baker in your scenario is NOT forcing anyone to come to him or to buy his cake; that is totally an act of the gluttons’ own free will, and to whatever extent it is a sin that God wishes to address, He will hold the gluttons themselves accountable, not every other human being who, in any remote or tangential way, might touch their lives. Following your logic to its conclusion, you might as well ask Christians to shut themselves up and live as hermits, lest something—anything—they do become part of a chain that somehow is eventually connected with a sin that someone freely chooses to commit. Given the nutritional deficiencies/harms of sugar, gluten, sodium, trans-fats, cholesterol, saturated fats, etc., etc., a Christian baker could hardly sell ANY product (to anyone) that couldn’t be said to cause some kind of harm to the buyer’s health, or that might precipitate an act of sin in consuming such food. Your logic thus breaks down.

  • DimensioT says:

    cahake hamybear PhilWeingart coyote You have stated a compelling argument, with only one minor flaw.  You have accidentally neglected to demonstrate the existence of “God” and to show that this “God” has ordained marriage.  As an unfortunate consequence, your argument seems to rely upon an unsubstantiated premise.

    However, I am certain that you will remedy this unintentional omission with a follow-up providing proof of the existence of “God” and documentation showing that this “God” has ordained what you claim now that you are aware of your error.

  • Chrisx2ra says:

    hamybear cahake adambravo Chrisx2ra Could you describe the adoption scenarios you have in mind?

  • Chrisx2ra says:

    OpusDei Chrisx2ra adambravo Argumentum ad hominem.
    I use quotes when referring to homosexual “marriage” and homosexual “wedding” not to frighten anyone but, through this succinct device, to avoid implying that these arrangements are just another variety of true marriages or true weddings.  That’s the very point I dispute.

  • cahake says:

    hamybear PhilWeingart coyote It would serve you well to remember, “hamybear,” that it is not yet the law of the land. 

    And despite how the Supreme Court may rule on the issue (two of the SCOTUS justices have officiated gay “weddings,” yet lack the integrity to recuse themselves; can we say, “conflict of interest”?), neither government itself nor any other institution of mankind can actually re-define marriage; what God ordained is not subject to human manipulation or tampering. Whatever deconstruction of true marriage may take place here on Earth will not, ultimately, stand against the Law of God, who designed marriage at Creation. 

    And, as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King declared in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” no law that does not square with the the moral law of God is, in fact, a just law. So it is with any law that purports to justify and “legalize” so-called gay marriage. 

    As for my “lie” that has supposedly been “destroyed,” well…I have no idea what you’re talking about.

  • Chrisx2ra says:

    adambravo Chrisx2ra Thank you for your reply.
    I did not say that procreation is the sole goal of marriage but that it is the rationale for laws recognizing the institution of marriage.  The natural procreative potential of a man and a woman is an essential good of marriage but not the only good.  (Companionship and fidelity are other goods.) This procreative potential could not be realized in your father’s marriage because of circumstances of timing.  His wife is too old.  However, it could have been realized at an earlier age.
    The state has no stake in homosexual relationships because they have no procreative potential.  Marriage laws are not enacted to make people feel good about themselves, but because a child needs a stable environment  with his mother and father.  In general, a child has a right to know and be raised by his mother and his father.  And this is best for human flourishing.  

    The state unfortunately, has already eroded the meaning of marriage through no fault divorce laws.  This serves the desires of adults but not the needs of children.  The meaning of marriage has also been obscured through selfish use of contraceptives by couples who choose to remain childless.  These developments have created a social climate in which the concept of homosexual marriage has gained acceptance.

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    WashingtonWallStComplex AlanfromBigEasy 
    You have not lived under the governance, or rather mis-governance, of Gov. Jindal.

    On a number of issues, he has demonstrated that is cares not for the common welfare but only his own vain Presidential ambitions. The worst example so far is the $16 billion deficit we face. He is AWOL running for the Republican nomination after having taken several steps to create this disaster.

    LSU is seriously looking at bankruptcy – a step that will damage higher education in Louisiana for decades.

    Now, in all too obvious bid to gain political support (THANKS Maggie >:(  he is making some hypothetical bigots selling flowers or cakes his priority, writing an editorial, etc. instead of working to undo the disaster he created.

    That New Orelans would suffer greatly, losing both gay and straight tourists, bothers Jindal not a twit. For as he has demonstrated multiple times, he has not ethics or morality – just naked ambition.

    These are the type of politicians that support bigots, hoping to get their support in turn.

    On second thought, I admit I was unfair to canines with skin conditions.

  • hamybear says:

    It’s the American people who are telling you that they don’t want discrimination to be codified into their laws. It makes companies not want to do business in your state. And just like Memories Pizza, all these companies are doing is making their opposition to the laws known. Why is it OK for some businesses to make public statements about their stance on the issue of same gender marriage, but not others? Memories Pizza was rewarded heavily for making their public stance known. Why is IBM any different? OH! Because they aren’t on your side.  Hypocrite.

  • hamybear says:

    cahake coyote You may not be aware of this, but some people in this country don’t belong to your particular religion.  In fact, some people in this country don’t have any religion at all.  They still get the same rights everybody else gets.

  • hamybear says:

    cahake SammyinSeattle coyote I just find it sad that the most important part of your religion, the part that you are willing to die for, is refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

    If you are a “Christian” gun shop owner and you sell a gun that gets used in a murder, are you participating in that murder?  No.

    If you are a “Christian” baker and you sell a cake to a fat person, are you participating in their gluttony?  No.

  • hamybear says:

    cahake adambravo Chrisx2ra Adoption also negates the rights of a biological parent.  Are you against adoption by straight couples too?

  • hamybear says:

    PhilWeingart coyote Um…in THIS country, marriage equality has been law for over 10 years. Your lie is destroyed.

  • hamybear says:

    cahake coyote PhilWeingart Obesity is a huge issue in this country and gluttony is a sin. Homosexuals make up a very small part of our population and the obese make up the majority. Why haven’t you taking such a hard stance against gluttons?  If a cake baker sells a cake to a fat couple, aren’t they participating in their sin? That is where you fail. You pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow and which to ignore.

  • hamybear says:

    WashingtonWallStComplex AlanfromBigEasy When your “disagreeing” with me causes me to not have the same basic rights and protections for my family that your family enjoys simply because you don’t like the gender of my spouse, then I feel that the title is apt.

  • WashingtonWallStComplex says:

    AlanfromBigEasy People who think folks they disagree with are mangy dogs are. . . not very good people.

  • WashingtonWallStComplex says:

    @ewe Voice of reason. . .or something.

  • DimensioT says:

    cahake DimensioT I did not compare homosexuality to race.  I compared religious belief related to homosexuality to religious belief related to race.  

    The religious beliefs of a person who sincerely believes that God intended the races to remain separate are subject to exactly the same legal protections as the religious beliefs of a person who believes that God abhors homosexual pairings.  Therefore, a person who believes that religious freedom demands that religious business owners may refuse service to same-sex couples must, to be intellectually consistent, also believe that a religious business owner may also refuse service to an interracial couple.

    Do you believe that a religious business owner who sincerely believes that God intended the races to remain separate should be permitted to refuse service to interracial couples?  Participation in an interracial wedding would be blasphemous and immoral to that business owner, but at present such a refusal is prohibited by law.

  • lenscraft says:

    Such a long list of lies. Are you incapable of telling the truth, or do you just simply believe the lies told to you by your leaders?

  • cahake says:

    PhilWeingart cahake coyote Thanks, PhilWeingart for clearing that up.

    Indeed, as mentioned here last night, it was an openly lesbian talk show host and political commentator, Tammy Bruce, who referred to the present LGBTQI (. . . ) movement as the “Gaystapo” because of their totalitarian tactics of “agree with me/bow to me and do what I want or we’ll shut you down or at least silence you” that they’re using to bully their opponents. At least some, like Bruce, have the integrity to recognize and admit that the LGBTQI ( . . . ) crowd is starting to badly overplay their hand, becoming “sore winners” as they relentlessly persecute people of faith by denying them THEIR rights.

    Just ask Brendan Eich (forced out as the CEO of Mozilla in 2014 for simply financially supporting Prop 8 [for traditional marriage] in California way back in 2008); Mike Pence (intimidated governor of Indiana during the recent RFRA dust-up there); the O’Connor family of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, IN, who received death threats and were temporarily forced to shut down their business simply because, though they routinely serve gay customers, they nonetheless said they could NOT serve an EVENT like a gay “wedding,” which they see as a blasphemous counterfeit of God’s holy institution of true marriage; Kelvin Cochran, Atlanta fire chief forced from his job merely because he wrote a book supporting traditional Christian virtues/values, which, of course, do not countenance homosexual behavior or gay “marriage”; Barronelle Stutzman, Aaron and Mellissa Klein, and Jack Philips, all Christian wedding vendors who’ve politely declined to serve a gay “wedding” and have been sued, fined, forced to take “sensitivity training,” or run entirely out of business for simply exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of religious exercise/expression. 

    And the list goes on . . .

  • cahake says:

    OpusDei cahake coyote PhilWeingart I was unaware of PhilWeingart’s earlier comment, OpusDei, but he has since filled me in, as you can see below.

  • PhilWeingart says:

    cahake coyote PhilWeingart
    Actually, cahake, I brought it up, in a comment that’s been taken down by now. I called the gay activist cadre the “Gaystapo,” and ended my recitation of their bullying tactics with “Seig Heil!” I really do think Progressives are the modern version of the same movement.

  • OpusDei says:

    cahake coyote PhilWeingart Exodus 20:16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

  • cahake says:

    adambravo cahake  Enough already of the tired, silly, invalid—and thus, now irrelevant—”selling one’s daughter into slavery” and “woman marrying her rapist” arguments! (That also goes for “do not mix different fabrics within a garment” and “do not eat shellfish or touch pigskin”!)

    According to Bible scholars from Augustine to Calvin to those of the present day, the Old Testament contains three different types of laws: 

    1) Ceremonial/Ritual Cleansing/Dietary Laws (largely symbolic, they governed theocratic Israel’s worship and animal sacrifice/eating practices, 

    2) Civil Laws (governing the interpersonal relationships of the ancient Israelites under God’s theocratic rule), and the 

    3) Moral Law of God, concerning serious issues of life and death, basic right and wrong, sexual morality, etc.
    Most scholars agree that the first two types of laws, which include the recommendation to marry “your” rapist or “sell your daughter into slavery” as well as proscriptions against shellfish-eating, mixed fabrics, and pigskin (Ceremonial/Ritual Cleansing/DIETARY Laws) are NO LONGER IN EFFECT, having been supplanted by the arrival of Christ and His reinterpretation of the Law during the New Testament. (Note, too, that these laws applied specifically to ancient, theocratic Israel, NOT our democratic republic—the United States of America of modern times!) 
    The Moral Law of God, however, which governs matters of sexual [im-]morality such as homosexual practice, is transcendent, timeless, and remains in effect forever—today as much as in Bible times. 
    So, issues of marrying “your” rapist and shellfish eating, etc.—now irrelevant; homosexual practice—still forbidden!

  • cahake says:

    adambravo Chrisx2ra  adambravo, you can surely see that Chrisx2ra clearly explained that male-female marriage, by TYPE, is the only kind of union capable of perpetuating the species by actual reproduction. 

    Chrisx2ra went to great pains to point out that, yes, there are certain specific heterosexual couples, like your father, who may be incapable of reproduction due to restrictions caused by age or infertility. None of these would be, or should be, prevented from marrying just because they, as EXCEPTIONS to their TYPE, cannot naturally produce children. 

    Homosexuals, on the other hand, as a TYPE, cannot EVER naturally reproduce. (If a gay couple could naturally reproduce, they would be EXCEPTIONS to the rule, whereas heterosexuals who can naturally reproduce are the RULE, not the exception.)

    So, let’s not be obtuse about this: Even though some heterosexuals (as exceptions to their type) cannot naturally reproduce, GENERALLY SPEAKING, only heterosexuals can reproduce naturally, and thus only heterosexual marriage, as God ordained and designed it at Creation, should be encouraged and regulated by the government, for the good of society and the perpetuation of the species within the environment, whenever possible, of a family consisting of children’s two biological parents—role models from each “half” (gender) of humanity. 

    A gay “marriage” ALWAYS necessarily denies children of at least one biological parent, and therefore, government has no vested interest in promoting such “marriages.” 

    And though companionship is a legitimate goal or aspect of marriage, if it were the sole or PRIMARY reason for marriage, government would have no interest in being involved with such marriages. After all, does government need to regulate friendships, romantic relationships in general, or companionships? Of course not. It’s only because HETEROSEXUAL relationships, generally speaking and by TYPE, can result in child-bearing and child-rearing, that necessitates government involvement and regulation (for matters concerning parental responsibility, custody rights, etc.) And in so doing, for the good of society, the government needs to encourage only the optimal arrangement for such chid-rearing: traditional, natural marriage as originally defined by God.

  • cahake says:

    @ewe “Jesus was an openly gay homosexual . . .”??? Now we’re really gone off the rails here. Ok, gay apologists (e.g., coyote, adambravo, et. al.) active on this blog, here’s a question for you: do you, too, subscribe to the outrageous and blasphemous notion that has just been propounded above by “ewe”? Do you even defend such nonsense?

    And now, ewe, back to you: and your PROOF of this ridiculous assertion is_____________?

  • cahake says:

    coyote cahake You’ve got to be kidding. So, according to you, directly quoting Jesus (in Matthew 19:4-6) as He declares God’s prescription for true marriage and human sexuality amounts to “twisting” religion/Jesus’ message “to promote hatred”??? 

    Apparently, you see Jesus’/God’s own definition of true marriage as constituting “hatred.” Perhaps you should take the matter up with God, coyote, for He—not I—is the one who defined and ordained marriage, at Creation, as a complementary union that represents the two “halves” of humanity, male and female, and who consistently condemns homosexual practice throughout scripture (Lev. 18:22, Romans 1:24-32, I Cor. 6:9-11, et. al.) as an obvious violation of His intended design for human sexuality. 

    You haven’t a leg to stand on with this, coyote. Indeed, there are none so blind as those who will not [allow themselves to] see . . .

  • cahake says:

    adambravo cahake Something wrong with referring to a particular constituency as “you folks”? My, how [over-]sensitive you are . . . 

    I’ll have you know, adambravo, that it was a self-professed LESBIAN, talk show host and political pundit Tammy Bruce, who first referred to the current crop of LGBTQI (. . . ) activists  as the “Gaystapo.” She, like a few others within your constituency (e.g., Andrew Sullivan, as mentioned earlier), have the integrity to recognize and acknowledge that “you folks” are getting to be “sore winners,” employing rather totalitarian bullying tactics to intimidate and silence your opponents despite the fact that you are presently enjoying many victories in the culture war that is raging in America. 

    Possessing a reasonable amount of intelligence, I am certainly capable of doing research, but I have no idea of what you, or anyone else, said on this blog that required me to do said research before commenting as I did. Enlighten me.

  • cahake says:

    coyote cahake PhilWeingart And you, coyote, are the one who first alluded to Nazis and the Nazi Party (Nazionale Socialistische Arbeiten Partei). You brought this “subject” up in the first place, not I nor PhilWeingart.

  • OpusDei says:

    Chrisx2ra adambravo That is a simply ridiculous argument.  The refusals have been on the basis of sexual orientation.  And your bigotry shows by your placement of the word wedding in scare quotes.  Neither your duplicitous argument or your bigotry are in any way Christian… they’re quite the opposite.

  • ewe says:

    Cahake: then get a job in a temple

  • ewe says:

    Cahake: You’re not sevicing my marriage if I buy your cake. You egomaniac. You’re a mysogynist.

  • ewe says:

    Phil weingsrt: Jesus was an openly gay homosexual who according to history was viciously murdered by ignorant people like you.

  • DimensioT says:

    I must assume that Ms.Gallagher also believes that a business owner who sincerely believes that God intended the races to remain separate should be legally allowed to refuse service to interracial couples, even though federal law currently prohibits such action.  To believe that Christian business owners who oppose same-sex unions should be permitted to refuse service to same-sex couples while also believing that business owners should not be permitted to discriminate on the basis of race regardless of the owner’s religious belief would be intellectually inconsistent.

  • adambravo says:

    Chrisx2ra Thank you for bringing civility into this discussion, and for being able to discuss the issue without resorting to insults or profanity.
    That being said, I think it’s safe to say my father’s second marriage never has, never could, and never will result in procreation–and I’m pretty sure that if you had suggested to my father the slim chance that he might once again become a parent, that might have scared him to death..
    To say that procreation is the sole goal of marriage (and to suggest that sex is the sole and primary ingredient in a successful marriage)  is, perhaps, a bit narrow in light of other new definitions of families (eg, single parents). There is companionship (in the case of my father), and, for a same-sex couple, the opportunity to raise a child, either through adoption or artificial insemination/surrogacy–options, by the way, equally available to infertile couples looking to start a family..
    Yes, a married opposite-sex couple is a great way to start a family. However, I think we’ve seen plenty of examples in the news of awful and horrendous stories that begin in opposite-sex couple households. There are plenty of wonderful stories of same-sex couples raising amazing kids out there.
    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/30/11956347-eagle-scout-son-of-lesbian-moms-boy-scouts-must-end-gay-discrimination

  • Chrisx2ra says:

    adambravo  And the publicized cases usually do NOT involve bakers or photographers refusing to serve individuals simply because they are homosexual.  “Hey — no gays here.”
    In fact, these business people are generally emphatic about their willingness to serve homosexual customers, but they refuse to lend their artistic talents and services to what they sincerely consider to be the promotion or tacit approval of homosexual activity.  Thus the baker would refuse to decorate a cake for a homosexual “wedding” regardless of the sexual preferences of the actual purchaser, just as they would refuse to decorate a cake for a polygamous marriage.  
    The conflict is between those with a morally permissive philosophy and those with a morally conditioned philosophy with respect to homosexuality.  The latter group will necessarily be those who say “no” and the homosexual rights laws always punish those who  say “no.”  There is a serious imbalance here because the adverse consequences for the baker or photographer can very well be the loss of their livelihood while generally the adverse consequence for the homosexual “wedding” patron is the minor inconvenience of going to another bakery.  In fact, in a number of these cases, it’s clear that the homosexual couple was targeting the business precisely because they knew the proprietor was a Christian with the historic Christian moral outlook.

  • Chrisx2ra says:

    SammyinSeattle cahake coyote Your point?

  • ewe says:

    Girl? Puleeeeeze.

  • ewe says:

    Sorry coyote. I was responding to cahakes who doesn’t comprehend that trials are about apples and oranges.

  • Chrisx2ra says:

    adambravo PhilWeingart Due process does not require the scope of the law to precisely match the rationale for the law. The rationale for marriage law is the procreative potential of the union of man and woman and the importance of promoting the family as the best environment for the nurturing of their children.  Yet, the law doesn’t exclude from marriage couples who are infertile because of some hormonal condition, for instance.  No one would say that, because we permit women who don’t ovulate to marry, marriage laws are not based on the potential for procreation and family simply .  The same applies to the fact that the law allows septuagenerians to marry.  Marriage laws do not lose their validity because the legislature chooses not to require young couples to prove they are fertile or because the legislature declines to specify an age after which couples are too old for marriage.  Further, in these cases, the marriage act is still, in some sense, ordered toward procreation, even though the chance of procreation, because of the impediments of age or other cause of infertility, is remote or nil.

    Contrast the homosexual couple.  Here it is clear without any further inquiry into their private situation that their sexual relationship never has, never could, and never will naturally result in procreation.  Anyone who knows the most rudimentary “facts of life” immediately recognizes that homosexual sex acts are by their nature NOT ordered to procreation.

    In response to Mr. Weingart’s statement “Marriage is the means by which humans reproduce” you state “Well, to be honest, I
    think plenty of people can reproduce without getting married.”  I think Mr. Weingart is well aware of that fact.  The point is that human flourishing is best assured when humans reproduce in the setting of marriage.  There’s abundant scholarly support for this conclusion, in addition to the wisdom of human history and the overwhelming evidence of the pain, suffering, pathology, and poverty occasioned by the decline of marriage in our culture.

  • ewe says:

    No coyote. It’s not free speech. This involves commerce and actual product exchange. You don’t get to choose whose money you accept based on your bigotry.

  • ewe says:

    It’s cake Boo!

  • ewe says:

    The ironic point of all this is yet to come because the very moment Islam is introduced into the political square it will be theses The jindahls and Maggie slobs that will be screaming the loudest for separation of church and state. Problem dived again. Bring it on jindahl. Go right ahead and misuse the hard earned tax dollars of silent louisianians who spend too much time working to notice the corrupt elite posing as your representative. .

  • ewe says:

    And will lose cause what you take for granted to enjoy for yourself is not your legal right to deny others. You lose legally. Otherwise your non profit religions will be on the legal chopping block next. Gay people only need to stop paying taxes for unequal representation and the problem should be solved rather quickly in favor of civil rights across the board.

  • ewe says:

    You’re a misinformed homophobic bigot Maggie Gallagher and bobby jindahl. No surprise you both think similarly. It is unacceptable for an elected representative to use tax resources to discriminate. Maggie Gallagher is just a loud mouthed insignificant bigoted blowhard. Louisianians prefer to lose corporations that furnish jobs then do bro. Otherwise speak out and haul these criminals using a warped gODD as their weapon into a court of law. Rational people will be more than happy to rid society of your rabid influence.

  • Chrisx2ra says:

    adambravo cahake Could you elaborate on lour point, please?

  • adambravo says:

    PhilWeingart Ah, yes–personal attacks and lazily disguised profanity instead of data. Typical conservative behavior.
    The blood tests–which are not required in most states–are to test for STDs, not fertility.
    http://www.ehow.com/about_6689537_blood-tests-required-marriage-licenses_.html
    Spain’s birthrate is slightly below average in Europe (but well ahead of countries where same sex marriage isn’t legal), and Belgium is far above average.
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/11/birth-rates-lag-in-europe-and-the-u-s-but-the-desire-for-kids-does-not/
    When I make a statement, I try to have facts to back it up, rather than ask other people to do my homework for me if they disagree.

  • PhilWeingart says:

    adambravo
    Nothing better than when an ignoramus gathers up his ignorance and expresses it as a smug insult.
    What the (*^&^(* did you think the blood tests were for, junior?

  • adambravo says:

    PhilWeingart “all you have to prove is your compatibility for procreation”. Really? I’m pretty sure my 75-year-old father did not have to prove that he and my 71-year-old stepmother could procreate when they got married fifteen years ago. That would have been one incredible pregnancy…
    “Marriage is the means by which humans reproduce” Well, to be honest, I think plenty of people can reproduce without getting married.
    And your comment about low birth rates appears to lack any sort of evidence. Iowa? Massachusetts? Belgium? Spain? Are birth rates plummeting there?

  • PhilWeingart says:

    coyote PhilWeingart What’s clear is that you’re about half as intelligent as I am, that you have no argument worth making, and that consequently you’re screaming “I win!!!” while you flee the field of battle.
    Have a nice life, you anti-intellectual, vicious coward. May God grant you mercy that you clearly do not deseve.

  • coyote says:

    PhilWeingart coyote I’m done responding to your bigotry.  It’s clear that you’ve lost, and you’re throwing tantrums in lieu of getting your way.  In ten years your ancestors will look back at your life with an uncomfortable embarrassment.

  • PhilWeingart says:

    coyote PhilWeingart
    (A) If you think Jesus had no objection to homosexuality, you are completely ignorant of the 2nd temple Judaism to which he and all the apostles adhered. Homosexuality was not mentioned among them because it was understood to have been abhorrent. You really should get an education about the religion you’re pretending to represent if you want to be credible.
    (B) Love has nothing to do with who gets to marry. If it did, you’d have to prove your love to the state; as it is, all you have to prove is your compatibility for procreation, which should tell you something. Love is a byproduct of a good marriage, not the primary purpose of it. And for the record, I love my father, my brother, my pastor, and my friends, but I’m not planning to marry any of them, nor should I. 
    (C) The rejection of gay “marriage” has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Marriage is not a religious institution, it’s a HUMAN institution; that’s why it’s sanctioned by the state in every civilization. Marriage is the means by which humans reproduce and pass along property, title, status, culture, and history. It indicates to the culture the form of sexual relationship that is productive; other types of relationships may be permitted, but the marriage is the one that actually benefits the state and society. It has involved the union of male with female everywhere in the world, throughout history, without exception–until the insanity of Progressive sexuality infested our culture like a plague.
    (D) Every cultural group that has adopted the Progressive, hedonistic “for my happiness” version of marriage that you’re defending, now has a birth rate so low that that cultural group is certain to die off within the next 50 years or so. I’m actually glad of this–it rids us of social pests rather efficiently–but we do need to point it out so fewer dupes will be fooled by the dishonest language you employ.

  • PhilWeingart says:

    coyote cahake blah blah blah blah
    Nothing is “beyond the pale” to a Progressive activist like you; you’ll do literally anything you can get away with. You just gin up the shocked tone when you think it gives you an advantage in a conversation.
    As to real civility, which IS a concern of mine, the problem is that when real Nazis appear on the scene, one has no language with which to describe them if calling them what they are is not permitted. The gay activist is not LIKE the Brownshirts, they are IDENTICAL to them. So the rational man is forced by necessity to call them what they are.
    You don’t want me to lie like you, do you?

  • adambravo says:

    cahake “You folks”? Really? Once again, you’re living in the right-wing bubble and incapable of doing research.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/adolf-hitler-gay-soldiers_n_5112827.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/03/linda-harvey-gay-rights-nazis-_n_5761310.html
    http://equalitymatters.org/emtv/201404090001

    Never mind the reference elsewhere on this page to the “Gaystapo”.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, but you might want to climb down from your high horse. People in glass houses…

  • coyote says:

    PhilWeingart coyote cahake A certain level of civility is required for intelligent conversation.  Equating gay men and women to ‘brownshirts’ goes beyond the pale, and shows that you have no sense of history.  I have yet to see gay men and women rounding up masses of people to be mass-murdered.  That you *do* makes you irrational and not worthy of an intelligent discussion.

  • adambravo says:

    cahake What he said… You are comparing apples and oranges–what a surprise.

  • adambravo says:

    cahake  So, I guess you’ll be endorsing selling one’s daughter into slavery, a woman marrying her rapist, and polygamy? Or would you prefer to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you’d like to live by?

  • PhilWeingart says:

    coyote cahake The “Seig Heil” in the now-deleted comment was my way of recognizing the Gay Lobby as the new Brownshirts. Anybody who read that comment and did not recognize the irony intended is not to be taken seriously; it was quite obvious.

  • PhilWeingart says:

    coyote, you are hilarious! Anybody who has done even a cursory reading of history knows that is the modern Progressives, not the Republicans, who is supporting all the policies of the German Nazi party, including the anti-Semitic stuff and the eugenics. The Nazis were never right-wingers; that was a lie concocted by the German Communist party, who competed with the Nazis for the same constituency.
    If Nazis are not welcome here, you should flag yourself and remove yourself.

  • coyote says:

    cahake coyote You can twist religion to say anything you want.  That’s exactly what Satan would do… twist Jesus’ message to promote hatred.

  • cahake says:

    coyote cahake Male-female marriage, throughout the Bible, is clearly the only type of relationship that God APPROVED, though various and sundry other forms/unions did exist.

    God’s intended, ordained design for human sexuality and family structure, is clearly delineated in Genesis 2:24 and echoed by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:4-6: a man shall leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife; the two shall become “one flesh.” Period.

  • cahake says:

    coyote PhilWeingart Your mushy, soft-headed views, coyote, do NOT comport with 2,000 years of orthodox Christian teaching, which approves only male-female marriage as God’s intended, ordained design for human sexuality and family structure, as clearly delineated in Genesis 2:24 and echoed by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:4-6. Having thus so clearly spoken about God’s true, intended design for marriage—which does NOT include or affirm same-sex relationships in any way—Jesus most assuredly  would NOT have officiated a “gay,” blasphemous counterfeit of God’s holy, sacred institution of marriage.

    God  (and Christianity) is not just “love”; also inherent in His nature is balancing justice, holiness, and righteousness. Besides, the call to exhibit Christian love does NOT require God, or us as Christians, to affirm or condone behaviors that God otherwise, throughout the Bible, forbids and condemns as sinful, as He does with homosexual conduct.

    Jesus, though He forgave the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-11), nonetheless charged her to “Go and sin no more.” Was Jesus displaying “hate” (or “bigotry” of some sort) because He called her, for her own good, to forsake her sin and its accompanying lifestyle? Hardly.

    Jesus came to “fulfill the Law and the Prophets,” which included the moral law of God that forbids and condemns homosexual behavior. His audience well knew and understood the moral law, especially as it related to sexual sin/immorality, without Jesus needing to address the specific topic of homosexuality. Furthermore, Jesus never addressed incest either; does that mean (or give us license to believe) He endorsed the practice? Tell me, Coyote.

  • coyote says:

    cahake adambravo The baker in question was not afoul of the law because they were not discriminating on the basis of their customer’s christianity, but rather on the basis of their hate speech and bigotry, which is of course not protected.  If the baker had refused to bake a cake for them on the basis of their being Christian, then they would have been in the wrong.

  • coyote says:

    cahake coyote PhilWeingart Anyone willing to google the “sig heil!” in your (now deleted) comment would discover the definition: “Sieg Heil became the salute of the German National Socialist (Nazi) party in the 1920s. It developed into the so called Hitler salute, the use of which was later made obligatory to all Germans in the Third Reich. After WWII, the public use of any form of the Hitler salute was criminalized in Germany and Austria.”

    I am not making that up.  And your comment was deleted for closing with that nazi party rallying cry.

  • cahake says:

    Bravo, Bobby Jindal! At last, a Republican with a stiffened spine who stands up to the LGBTQI (. . . ) lobby!

  • cahake says:

    adambravo Au contraire. You’re not up-to-date at all, adambravo. That very thing has, in fact, happened (Google it), and the LGBTQI( . . . ) vendors were protected—exempted from having to produce a cake decorated with scripture verses that condemn homosexual practice and that God forgives such sin, if confessed.

  • cahake says:

    coyote PhilWeingart And you are not the arbiter of who is a so-called “Nazi,’ Coyote. You folks throw that word around pretty carelessly, as bullies, when even some on your own side (Andrew Sullivan, for example) are beginning to caution against such totalitarian (fascist) tactics.

  • cahake says:

    nowaRINO Participation, in any way, in a gay “wedding,” is seen by many people of faith as lending approval to the proceedings—an endorsement of something they find to be a blasphemous counterfeit of God’s ordained design for marriage, human sexuality, and optimal family structure. 

    Besides, and most importantly, what constitutes being a “participant” in such an event/activity is in the eye of the beholder. It is not up to you or anyone else to decide or define for that individual, for if the person of faith himself feels he is contradicting and violating his faith, and will be held accountable by God for such a transgression, that’s all the matters; it’s up to the person himself, subjectively, NOT others, in determining what is a personal violation of faith. (And if the courts disagree, THEY are wrong in do doing. 

    And one day, all such wrongs will be righted when “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

  • coyote says:

    cahake coyote In our society we disapprove of bigotry.  That means that no public business can refuse service to an individual on the basis of their race, religion, or sex.  Many states add ‘sexual orientation’ to this list.  That means that a person who makes wedding cakes cannot refuse to make a cake for your wedding on the basis of your being black. It also means that a Jewish florist cannot refuse to provide flowers for your wedding on the basis of your being Christian. If you don’t like this, perhaps you would be happier living somewhere else where bigotry is more legal?

    Second, when I said “Ms. Gallagher and her ilk wish to ban my church from marrying loving couples.” I was referring to the National Organization for Marriage’s efforts to impose a nationwide ban on churches other than their own marrying couples.

    Lastly, your knowledge of history seems like it does not come from research.  The ‘male-female’ simplistic model of marriage has NEVER been the norm until fairly recently.  Read your bible.  Men would often take multiple wives, or would take concubines or force prisoners of war into marriage.  Outside of judeo-christian tradition there are many other forms of marriage.  Native americans took a combination of male and female ‘wives’.  Tibetan women took multiple husbands.  Chinese Emperor Ai of Han took a male spouse.  There are many other examples.

  • cahake says:

    SammyinSeattle cahake coyote And you might want to review the concept of freedom of religion: 

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.”

  • cahake says:

    coyote coyote  What colossal hubris! Let me get this straight: So if a Christian (or Muslim, or Orthodox Jew, or other person of faith) merely declines, politely, to share his/her artistic talents in the service your gay “marriage,” because to that individual, doing so is an outrageous violation of his/her deeply held religious beliefs/conscience (and thus a clear infringement of that person’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religious expression), then THAT, to you, constitutes “freedom to impose [his] beliefs on you”? To you, that is the equivalent of “[He] will control your life and make you live by [his] beliefs”?? How is that so???

    Never mind that neither he/she, nor anyone else, is stopping you from going ahead and getting “married,” at least in your own eyes. (God might well have a different view of things, I daresay!) Never mind that there are quite likely any number of OTHER wedding vendors who will gladly serve you for your “wedding,” as they seem to vastly outnumber those with religious scruples in our politically correct, morally decadent society.  And, as far as I know, neither that Christian nor anyone else is holding a knife to your throat, “imposing” their view of true marriage into your mind and upon your life, as you remain quite free, indeed, for all time, to believe exactly and entirely whatever fantasy you wish to embrace regarding the definition of marriage. NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM ANY OF THIS. 

    YOU, however, ARE imposing a “substantial burden” (a legal term) upon that Christian vendor, insofar as, in today’s topsy-turvy litigious society, you can have that vendor sued, fined, jailed, and even run out of business for merely subscribing—and holding fast—to the belief that God ordained marriage, human sexuality, and family structure to be complementary in nature, i.e., between two people of the OPPOSITE sex (role models from each gender for the benefit of any children born to the union). 

    So, who is it REALLY who’s doing the bullying here? 

    And BTW, virtually all societies, around the entire globe, since time immemorial, have honored God’s male-female model for marriage as THE blueprint for true marriage, for about 5,000 years now. (And how long has gay “marriage” been around? Maybe 10-15 years, tops?) So who are YOU to refer to the 5,000-year-old definition of marriage, the cornerstone of all civilization, as the product of “extremist religious views”?? (Sounds like traditional, natural marriage is the moral consensus of millennia, to me.)  And just who is attempting to do the “imposing” in this scenario??? 

    And just exactly what did the Framers have in mind when they wrote the First Amendment? That is, what is freedom of religion/religious expression supposed to mean, or amount to, if it does not, it situations such as this, allow a person the exemption of declining to engage in an event that violates his deeply held religious views? Is he supposed to confine his “free” exercise of religion to the confines of the four walls of the sanctuary where he attends church each week? Or did our Founding Fathers intend for people of faith to be able to live out that faith in all aspects of their daily lives, business dealings included, as the “free exercise” of their religion? Take a wild guess!

  • SammyinSeattle says:

    cahake coyote You might want to review the concept of “substantial burden”.

  • cahake says:

    coyote What colossal hubris! Let me get this straight: So if a Christian (or Muslim, or Orthodox Jew, or other person of faith) merely declines, politely, to share his/her artistic talents in the service your gay “marriage,” because to that individual, doing so is an outrageous violation of his/her deeply held religious beliefs/conscience (and thus a clear infringement of that person’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religious expression), then THAT, to you, constitutes “freedom to impose [his] beliefs on you”? To you, that is the equivalent of “[He] will control your life and make you live by [his] beliefs”?? How is that so???

    Never mind that neither he/she, nor anyone else, is stopping you from going ahead and getting “married,” at least in your own eyes. (God might well have a different view of things, I daresay!) Never mind that there are quite likely any number of OTHER wedding vendors who will gladly serve you for your “wedding,” as they seem to vastly outnumber those with religious scruples in our politically correct, morally decadent society.  And, as far as I know, neither that Christian nor anyone else is holding a knife to your throat, “imposing” their view of true marriage into your mind and upon your life, as you remain quite free, indeed, for all time, to believe exactly and entirely whatever fantasy you wish to embrace regarding the definition of marriage. NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU FROM ANY OF THIS. 

    YOU, however, ARE imposing a “substantial burden” (a legal term) upon that Christian vendor, insofar as, in today’s topsy-turvy litigious society, you can have that vendor sued, fined, jailed, and even run out of business for merely subscribing—and holding fast—to the belief that God ordained marriage, human sexuality, and family structure to be complementary in nature, i.e., between two people of the OPPOSITE sex (role models from each gender for the benefit of any children born to the union). 

    So, who is it REALLY who’s doing the bullying here? 

    And BTW, virtually all societies, around the entire globe, since time immemorial have honored God’s male-female model for marriage as THE blueprint for true marriage, for about 5,000 years now. )And how long has gay “marriage” been around? Maybe 10-15 years, tops?) So who are YOU to refer to the 5,000-year-old definition of marriage as the product of “extremist religious views”?? (Sounds like traditional, natural marriage is the moral consensus of millennia, to me.)  And just who is attempting to do the “imposing” in this scenario???

  • coyote says:

    PhilWeingart You should be ashamed of yourself promoting the nazi party and your allegience to Adolph Hitler.  I have flagged your comment.  Nazis are not welcome here.

  • coyote says:

    PhilWeingart coyote Ms. Gallagher and her ilk wish to ban my church from marrying loving couples.  I am a Christian, and I worship Jesus Christ, who never, ever spoke against gay people.  Jesus would have officiated a same-sex marriage, because he preached that we should love our brother.  You know who is opposed to love?  Satan.

  • SammyinSeattle says:

    adambravo Ms. Gallagher is speaking from the comfort of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it’s protections for those who express a particular religious affiliation.

  • AlanfromBigEasy says:

    Once again, Gov. Jindal has put his Presidential ambitions ahead of the good of the state he governs. He did it before by letting Grover Norquist’s group directly work with the legislature. And see the massive fiscal mess we are in. Worse than Kansas. LSU is preparing to declare bankruptcy !

    http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/lsu_academic_bankruptcy.html

    New Orleans, where I live, is one of the most gay friendly places in the USA. And this bigot wants to destroy our economy !

    His actions, putting his ambition ahead of the good of the people who elected him, are extremely UNETHICAL and even IMMORAL !

  • PhilWeingart says:

    coyote I hope you enjoy your 30 pieces of silver from the gay lobby, because you’re speaking 180 degrees opposite the truth. The Christians in this matter impose nothing on anybody. Nobody has to live by their beliefs. It is the gays who not only insist that everybody endorse their lifestyle, but refuse to allow ordinary citizens to enjoy their ordinary living if they happen to disagree. It is you, coyote, who defends the fascists.

  • coyote says:

    Since when does “free exercise of religion” mean “freedom to impose my beliefs on you”?  When did “I am a Christian business owner” mean “I will control your life and make you live by my beliefs”? 

    It used to be that in the United States we had some level of respect for the religious beliefs of others, but Ms. Gallagher and Governor Piyush Jindal want to impose their extremist religious views on the entire population.

  • drwas says:

    BOYCOTT indiana!

  • nowaRINO says:

    The caterer, the cake decorator, the waitstaff, etc.  are not participants. In 30 years of doing wedding receptions, if any member of my staff ever acted like they were participating in the party, they would be fired. No one in the hospitality industry ever asks if the caterer or  cake decorator if they are participating/celebrating the Smith/Jones wedding this weekend. You are asked if you are ‘working’ the party.We worked the party, not participated. We were professionals. At no time did we think we were endorsing their particular marriage. At no time did I or my staff think about discriminating. I advertised a product and we delivered it to every one who paid. We follow the public accommodation laws.

  • NoToAmericanCaste says:

    It’s interesting that Maggie should praise a politician who is promoting division and bigotry AGAIN in the American south.  It’s as if she didn’t pay attention in history or social studies classes.  Maybe she was too busy learning lessons from the Bible, which was last used in the south to promote slavery and all the division that causes amongst humans, and is now being used to promote hatred and bigotry against LGBT people.

  • adambravo says:

    Who will follow you? Anyone ill-informed and selfish enough to  believe “free exercise of religion” means “freedom to force anyone you interact with to live according to your personal beliefs.” Not surprised you bought into Jindal’s ignorance–and, hey, yeah, let’s allow the lgbt community to discriminate against the Catholics. Let’s encourage discrimination and divide this country even further! FYI, the only businesses that have independently stepped forward and said, “Hey, I’ll discriminate!” are right-wing-owned (bakers, florists, car mechanics). There hasn’t been a single lgbt baker, florist, or car mechanic who’s said, “Hey–no Bible thumpers here!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *