Having read the majority opinion for the Supreme’s Obergefail decision, I am now in a position to describe what Justice Kennedy’s dog gets for breakfast.
In that opinion, he did try to be nice to those who differ, but being nice and being coherent are not the same thing. He tried to head off the pc-martinets by saying that “the First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection.” Very nice, very thoughtful. And then this, one week later — the Kleins of Oregon (who had politely declined to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian phantasmagorithon) had their fine of 135K finalized by an administrative judge. Moreover, Brad Avakian, this Oregon Labor Kommissar who finalized the fine, also ordered the Kleins to “cease and desist” from talking about it. Pay the money, and put on this gag.
I have been somewhat heartened by the blowback the Supreme Court decision has been getting from Christians. It is true that we do have to figure out how to buck up our “surrender-now-and-call-it-the-way-of-the-cross” contingent, but by and large the level of noisy outrage has been fully appropriate — though we could always use a good deal more of it.
What has been remarkable is the silence of the so-called moderate liberals, the ones who are supposed to have a real commitment to free speech. (“I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”) Our earlier predictions of marriage mayhem (e.g. plural marriages) and tyrannical restrictions on religious liberty were all met with soothing reassurances, and the backs of our hands were not infrequently patted, but now, where’d they all go? The ink on the decision is barely dry, and the machinery of mandatory redefinitions is well-oiled and ready to run. Then somebody offstage said, sotto voce, “Fire that baby up.”
And the smoke pours out of the machine.
“Oh, we believe in free speech. Just not in hate speech. And hate speech is anything we don’t feel like hearing.”
If you are up to the challenge of saying, as Justice Kennedy most certainly was, that if you are lonesome in bed another dude can serve just as well, then you are also up to saying that restricted speech is just as free as it ever was, as free as a bird, as untrammeled as anything else you need a permit for.
Here is the heart of the tyranny. Everybody doesn’t have to go out and get homosexually married now. Carry on as you were. But the claim of the Court is that we all — every man jack of us — need to submit to their arbitrary redefinitions of words, as it suits them, whether or not they are exegeting the law, squaring the circle or rounding the bend. As Justice Scalia put it, memorably, “It is of overwhelming importance, however, who rules me.”
To conclude, here is a little meditative thought, taken from an extreme document penned by some radicals of yore, a thought that you might want to ruminate on while watching your fireworks tomorrow night. Just a thought.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
If you think I am overheating it . . .
“The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”
Or, put another way . . .
“They rise, to marry ancient sources alone. Ice cream! Who wants ice cream? They rise, as a matter of history and tradition, but remain urgent, both ancientish and alone. They rise to define a liberty that remains like the sour candy you used to be able to get, but now? — now we know better.”
Stare hard at the first sample. Where do your rights come from? Marriage is a fundamental right. It is, according to Kennedy, of transcendental importance. Great. Where do rights come from then? Not from ancient sources alone? So part of my rights, or some of them, do come from ancient sources? You say something like that, and provide no footnotes? What is the other point of origin for my rights? They rise, they emerge, they evolve, they ascend, they swell, and they undulate out of . . . what?
Any ringing truth here like “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”? No, no, not a bit of it. You, my friend, got some of your rights from unspecified ancient sources, and the rest of them were endowed upon you by a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.
You, my friend, have no constitutionally recognized liberty at all anymore. As Scalia put it, it matters who rules us. It matters what they appeal to. And it definitely matters when they locate the ground of your fundamental liberties in a legalese word salad.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
— Thomas Jefferson
You first!
And there’s always someone willing to pull the trigger.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” In the past few days, I have seen several articles written by Christians dropping dark hints, like this one by Rev. Wilson, that it’s well nigh time to start thinking about overthrowing the federal government. Some have been more explicit than others. Of course, the first hurdle for Christians seeking an overthrow of the feds… Read more »
Gregory, The Holy Spirit has been moving on His people for about one decade now. The estimable Catholic blogger Anne Barnhardt has be screeching and teaching during that time that what has now come to pass would come to pass and it has. In my view, things are ‘trickling up’ from faithful individuals up to the “organization men” ; furthermore a great sifting of men is occurring. God is making the things of the heart visible for all to see and each individual is being confronted with their responsibility vis-a-vis The Lord.. We live in a time of wonder. It… Read more »
Interesting. I had never heard of her until your comment. Apparently she’s also a hardcore racist: She urges people to buy long guns because “THERE WILL BE MASS RAPES when the inner city hip-hop contingent can no longer be contained by standard law enforcement.”
And if God himself has chosen you to help overthrow the feds, how can I compete with that? I doubt if me telling you that it’s probably not a good idea and is not going to work is going to hold much sway.
Ok, Gregory. You have shown your hand.
Uh-oh. Sounds like I just made some sort of list. Even though I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say I’ve shown my hand.
But whatever I’ve done, I’m sure I can make it up to you. I know where a lot of the Unbelievers live. I can get you a bunch of license plate numbers.
No, I mean you are trolling and/or unserious.
I think it’s clear that I’m being quite serious. Plans to overthrow the government are not going to work, are illegal, and it’s really, really bad to head down that road. And I’m not all that impressed with someone telling me that God has chosen him specifically for the task. I still say that kind of talk is foolishness.
Resistance to tyranny is what is in the works and it is happening now. Some, Barnhardt included, me included, many others I know personally and impersonally, have seen it coming for some years. You don’t. wow. We who do are preparing ourselves. For example, the State of New York passed an Assault Weapons Registration law. The compliance rate is estimated at less than 5%. I.e. people are ignoring the government and retaining their ability to defend themselves. Christians are peaceful people. However, we are duty bound to defend ourselves. What I see, and you apparently do not see, is that… Read more »
Some, Barnhardt included, me included, many others I know personally and impersonally, have seen it coming for some years. You don’t. wow. *************** Actually, I’ve been telling people for about 25 years now that, given the logic of several Supreme Court rulings and Christian responses to them, 1) gay marriage being legalized in all 50 states was inevitable, and 2) Christians who oppose homosexuality won’t be given a religious liberty pass, and 3) Bible colleges and other religious non-profit groups will lose their tax exemptions unless they allow gay marriage, and 4) most Christian groups will eventually cave to the… Read more »
ok, Gregory.
First, 4 is not valid for any Christian that has even the most basic understanding of the Bible. And we see a pattern of membership decline for denominations that do cave on such matters of eternal truth, consistency, or beauty. And I see your point regarding the seemingly impracticality and logistics problems of any attempt at trying to overthrow tyranny, but you seem to be neglecting some points of how it could occur. Things could buckle in many ways. >>”Plans to overthrow the government are illegal” Yes, but what would come first would be the Court becoming irrelevant, and less… Read more »
The “government” like the go ernment of Rome or more recent the Soviet Union or East Germany is going to overthrow itself. Such governments always do. Thinking that this one will be different strikes me as a bit naive.
There was a time in, oh…the mid-1770s that a large contingent of people said what you’re saying now. Some, however, believed that whether or not it was possible or feasible in the remotest fashion, it was most certainly necessary. Freedom doesn’t come for free, as they say. Mr. Henry knew the possible cost, but his response was not, “It’ll never work.” His response was, “Give me Liberty or give me death!” I’m sure the Redcoats and the Tories viewed him as seditious. And I suppose by definition, he was. But that’s where he got things right. Sedition against tyranny is… Read more »
God can.
“Plans to overthrow the government are not going to work, are illegal…” :P What is this guy even talking about? Buddy, America as a country was FOUNDED on the overthrow of government. A response to dictatorial decrees confounding the religious liberties of the British citizenry. This is all totally déja vu. “… and it’s really, really bad to head down that road.” Bad for *whom*? Statists and the counter-culturalists who rely on them? Sure, OK. *shrug* If anyone’s heading down a road, it’s the politicians who take it upon themselves to flout the Constitution and rule over the people. History… Read more »
“Bad for *whom*? Statists and the counter-culturalists who rely on them?” “Buddy, America as a country was FOUNDED on the overthrow of government.” Yes, I’m well aware of how America was founded. That in no way negates the fact that it’s illegal to try to overthrow the present government, or to even to make plans to do so. That’s called sedition, and the authorities tend to frown upon it. Plus, back then there was no NSA, no internet, no tanks, no national guard, no missiles, no tens of millions of left wingers who would do everything they could to see… Read more »
Your judgement and advice will be given the consideration it is due.
“… it’s illegal to try to overthrow the present government, or to even to make plans to do so. That’s called sedition, and the authorities tend to frown upon it.”
Oh, OK, so you aren’t necessarily against it, you’re just worried about the blowback.
I guess we’ll just see what happens, yeah?
No, I’m completely against it. There’s no chance of success, and it’s stupid to even consider it. Do I care if others are silly enough to try it? Not really, no. I’m not going to lose any sleep over someone who decides they want to either spend the rest of their life in prison or die violently pursuing a goal they haven’t got a Chinaman’s chance in hell of achieving. Yes, we’ll see what happens. Life in America is going to be very interesting over the next several decades. It’s what we wanted, and it’s a bit late to be… Read more »
“I’m completely against it. There’s no chance of success, and it’s stupid to even consider it.” Depends on the manner of overthrow. A bunch of people storming D.C. with bullhorns and pitchforks, sure, probably not the greatest plan of attack. But there are several ways to effect a return to Constitutionalism in opposition to the trajectory toward the expansion of federal power and the disenfranchisement of the citizenry (the cumulative episodic offenses of which are what the response would be about — not just the latest statist decree du jour, contrary to your assertion). It would probably be faster and… Read more »
As a former Republican it is important to mention that the strategic and tactical assumption of lying as just another political strategy–as something the professionals do–is rife within the entire political class and is not limited to a particular party.
They are proud of their lies.
McDivitt is right to point out that “we the people” have been voting to entrench this tyranny for many election cycles. Strangely, he seems to be advocating further Christian abdication as the solution. I imagine McDivitt explaining to first century Christians how being fed to the lions has “no chance of success”.
I seem to recall readng somewhere that failing ro uphold an oath of office to the Constitution is treason.
Oberthrowing the tyranny that binds us wouldn’t be necessary if anyone was willing to jail our treasonous leaders. Smh
“Oberthrowing”. I see what you did there.
There are a lot of countries that would love to see America self-destruct. Rest assured they would do everything in their power to supply arms and intelligence to the various factions involved. If America can’t control its border now, why do you suppose it would be able to after government workers and their families started being murdered?
So now you’ve moved from a simple coup, which could theoretically be carried out with no loss of life, to a much bloodier operation where you’re planning on murdering government workers and their families?
Really? Over two dudes getting married?
You are afraid and would sell- out your mother if the Fed came kicking on your door. Your pathetic. We dispise your fear of man.
Oh, brother…
“You are afraid and would sell- out your mother if the Fed came kicking on your door.” He totally would. I’m sure glad that Christians ignored all claims that there was “No chance of success!” when they decided to illegally help runaway slaves escape bondage in the South. I can see Harriet Tubman now, with a train of slaves behind her, happening upon this Greg McDivitt guy, standing there with has hand up going, “Now just hang on a moment! ZERO chance of success!” and she and the slaves just look at him like he’s wearing a chicken costume, then… Read more »
I’m confused. While I’d always understood that Harriet Tubman broke the law, or disobeyed the government, you seem to be saying she overthrew the government. Can you expand on this? Because I thought it was the Confederacy, not Harriet Tubman, who tried to overthrow the government. (And I’ve always heard they failed, BTW.) Anyway, please explain how Harriet Tubman overthrew the US government. I’m dying to hear it.
“While I’d always understood that Harriet Tubman broke the law, or disobeyed the government, you seem to be saying she overthrew the government. Can you expand on this?” I was responding to Tim Paul’s observation about your cowardice, not addressing your claim that some specific form of overthrow (involving something like a Fidel Castro moment, presumably) isn’t likely to succeed. Fortunately, there are numerous ways to rebel very effectively against the scourge of unjust laws. It’s been done before, as someone like Tubman demonstrated. “… I thought it was the Confederacy, not Harriet Tubman, who tried to overthrow the government.… Read more »
It was the North, usurping the Constitution per slavery/states’ rights and overthrowing the states’ rights to decide. It was the South not wanting to overthrow the government but to secede voluntary membership in the Union. The slavery issue was the regrettable moral issue that was mixed up in all of that. This made it difficult on an individual level (Harriet Tubman, etc.) per civil disobedience/breaking the law, etc. I guess we’ll all know how hard the factors involved in civil war or secession or tyranny, regrettably, in time. But there’s no doubt the Supreme Court turned the law and Constitution… Read more »
That might be the first time I’ve laughed since the Supreme Court ruling. Oh, wait, I guess I did on the other thread when someone assumed, without simple polite inquiry, that I wanted slavery to return. Sigh. :D
Don’t obfuscate, or I’ll assume you’re a liar. I have never advocated violence, either the ‘simple coup’ of your imagination or the murder of government workers.
I merely noted that the veneer of civilization is much thinner than you think. And many of America’s enemies would love to get involved to the detriment of the American people. Remember you scoffed at the possibility of war. I said it was feasible, not good.
I didn’t bring up murdering government workers and their families. You did.
You mentioned the presumed murder of IRS workers. When did either of us advocate it? You accused me of advocating murder and are now trying to weasel out of it.
“Over two dudes getting married?” No, over a rogue Supreme Court making law based on public opinion and whim and denying the Constitutional rights of states’ rights to handle these decisions on a state level with the voice and vote of the people. How far are we willing to let them continue before it’s over MORE than just “two dudes getting married”…the ramifications of such a ruling on a constitutional and a moral level, both. And this is a good conversation. We’ll all have to decide our “Here I Stand” moment and for Whom we stand at some point when… Read more »
“No, over a rogue Supreme Court making law based on public opinion and whim and denying the Constitutional rights of states’ rights to handle these decisions on a state level with the voice and vote of the people. ” **************** Well, SCOTUS did all those things, in pretty much the exact same ruling, back in 1967, with Loving vs. Virginia. They invalidated several states’ laws against interracial marriage, even though at the time 80% of Americans thought interracial marriage was immoral. Right now, only about 50% of Americans think gay marriage is immoral. So should we have overthrown the govt… Read more »
Well. Excellent. I am all agreed this rogue behavior has been going on before this most recent decision. And I am bothered that, because it is a more shocking “moral” issue, that people are focusing more on homosexuality/gay marriage rather than the core problem of a rogue Supreme Court messing with our states’ rights where the people are to be in charge of so many issues with the blessing of the 10th amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the… Read more »
Yes. If Loving was decided correctly, then so was Obergefell. In fact, given the reasoning in Loving, Obergefell was inescapable and inevitable. So why are people who praise Loving complaining? And if Obergefell is tyranny, so is Loving. So why haven’t Christians and conservatives spent the last 40+ years denouncing it, instead of praising it? Personally, I don’t care who marries who. Straight, gay, interracial, whatever. But Christians and conservative are trying to have it both ways. They think it’s terrible that the government is forcing people who oppose gay marriage to choose between their vocation and their conscience, but… Read more »
“If…why…” Yes, it’s a blatant discrepancy that I keep waiting for the Christians (leaders and laymen included) to clue in to. We’ve got to get our logic straight so our actions and recommendations are consistent and effective. As to your questions, though, because in moral principle, Christians agreed that the Loving ruling was in alignment with Biblical truth. It, regrettably, made the other issue of the court exceeding its constitutional authority fade into the background. Much like the Civil War. People wanted the evil of slavery gone, both sides politicized it though for their own advantage at times, and with… Read more »
“As to your questions, though, because in moral principle, Christians agreed that the Loving ruling was in alignment with Biblical truth.” Well, they didn’t at the time. White Christians back then were outraged at SCOTUS for this ruling. Today about half of Americans oppose gay marriage, but in 1967, a much higher percentage of Americans, 80%+, thought interracial marriage was profoundly immoral, and conservatives and evangeliclas said the court had no right to ignore the clear will of the people and violate states’ rights by invalidating laws against it. But evangelicals today have no problem with interracial marriage, by and… Read more »
Well said. I thought many of the same things with mocking the BJU case…”your turn is coming”. “People laugh now when I say that in the future the SBC and most other evangelicals will approve of gay marriage and denounce Christians of the past for opposing it.” I’m not laughing. Maybe breathing a sigh of relief in agreement of observation. And, as far as people laughing NOW. That is even more foolish than before because there is already splintering and debating IN the church. We have the younger generation Christians in so called conservative fundamentalist and/or evangelical churches that are… Read more »
“Choose this day whom you will serve” and “No man can serve two masters” and “..me and my family we shall serve the Lord” are bright flashing lights in Scripture showing us what God demanded of our forbears. We are not exempt from having to make those choices.
We, in America, have had it easy because “our” government, law and courts were Christian in character. They are now pagan and ergo at enmity with Him.
The first breach of their charter before God was their adoption of the lie in matters great and small.
what this “illegal” talk? again, straight from the Dec of Independence from guys who KNEW all about it:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
Well, heck, I didn’t know about that. Obviously, that changes everything, and overthrowing the government *is* legal. So knock yourself out, Andrew.
“Obviously, that changes everything, and overthrowing the government *is* legal.”
His point is that when what is legal falls out of line with what is morally right according to the civil society which the government serves, then it is the duty of the American citizen to step outside the law in order to effect a correction.
e.g. The response of assorted Americans to slavery, to taxation without representation, to sitting at the back of the bus, etc.
This duty follows straight from the covenantal nature of Government. God created government for our good and we, as citizens are to submit to it and render honor and obedience to our leaders. However, when, after a long string of abuses…., it becomes evident that our Government rejects their position under God–Caesar demanding a pinch of incense, for example–and demands what cannot belong to them, it is our Christian duty as Christian citizens to resist. Notice Gregory McDivitt, that the choice is not optional for Christians; it is our duty and God always provides His people with His stark choice:… Read more »
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
—
Well, then McD, I’m confused. So I’ll just ask you this for clarification: Do you believe there is such a time that it is your right, your duty, to throw off the government? If so, under what circumstances would you believe that time had arrived?
Rights, duties, and abilities are three different things. (And, yes, I know you only asked about two, since there seems to be an awful lot of nitpicking of my posts.) At any rate, it’s moot. The time when the American govt could’ve or should’ve been overthrown is long, long past. And now there’s nothing for it. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Amirite, guys? No one is going… Read more »
“You’ll remember back in 2008, when Prop 8 was defeated in California.”
??
Prop. 8 *passed* in 2008. Most Californians voted in favor of the traditional definition of marriage, including majorities in the five most populous counties of the state.
The will of the people of California was “defeated” a couple of years later, by a judgment from a northern district court.
You’re right. Prop 8 passed; gay marriage was defeated. My mistake in phrasing; my point remains – gays lost that vote, due largely to heavy black turnout for Obama/against Prop 8, but when gays went on the warpath after the vote, did they go after blacks? No; they went after Mormons.
“At any rate, it’s moot. The time when the American govt could’ve or should’ve been overthrown is long, long past. And now there’s nothing for it.” Well. I guess I say I agree…mostly. Christianity has been in an “eat drink and be merry for America will never die” mentality being charmed and lulled to sleep in the world rather than as Pilgrims making Progress. Maybe for future generations sakes, I hope for some sort of miracle or answer…for what was good in America to continue. I keep reading all these Christian leaders and bloggers waiting for some unified rallying cry,… Read more »
Christians need to reject the individualistic, reactionary, panic-button, fart-in-the-wind, free-for-all violence. The tactics of Muslims show desperation and lack of principle. Our resistance needs to be principled, and organized, and affirmed from leadership. In other words, when the time comes to cross the bridge, we need to go together in large groups, not as individuals popping off. We need to act covenantally. Church leaders need to lead covenantally, and prepare their congregations for orderly resistance (hopefully non-violent). Violence is not off of the table, but it needs to be by declaration of war only, and it needs to be over… Read more »
“…with liberty and justice for all” Hmmmph!
Well said Milo!
“And for those who say “we’re not talking about overthrowing the
government, but peacefully seceding”, that’s especially rich coming just
a few weeks after so many Christian leaders denounced the very flag
that represents the right of secession.”
It was so eerily ironic, wasn’t it? Christian leaders were falling all over the left regarding a flag that stood for states’ rights, and by the end of the week with the Supreme Court ruling were letting out rebel cries. I’m assuming we’ll have more cowards than rebels this time around, though.
Yeah…let’s not have another civil war. If it’s anything like the last one, there’ll be around 7 million dead Americans. That’s the best case
If it’s worse, which it will be, I’ll be dead at within two years of the end, because if I’m alive, the leftists will hang me for being one of those conservatives. The rightists will hang me for stopping a lynching.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” Gregory, our Founders were indeed describing the right of revolution (“throw off such government”) but they also gave three all-important qualifications to the exercise of this right: First, the people have no right to revolt against “light and transient causes. . .” Instead, there must be “a long train of abuses and usurpation. . .”… Read more »
Third, the right to revolt belongs to the people generally, not to some small portion of them.
Hearsay, but IIRC 1/3 pro freedom, 1/3 anti-freedom 1/3 ambivalent during Revolution 1.0. Active fighters where ~3% of the 1/3 pro freedom. So, an “unreasonable, extremist, fringe” group of men gave birth to America.
The rest of your comment is very good. thx
I think Jack’s point is that the American War for Independence was initiated by majority-elected state representatives, whether or not a majority had the endurance to fight for seven years.
SSM is not yet legal in Australia, but this is already happening: “Since when has a well-liked member of the church’s hierarchy been told when and where he should disseminate fundamental Christian doctrine, and threatened with being hauled up to an anti-discrimination body?Since last week, that’s when. And no, this isn’t North Korea, this is Tasmania. The unfortunate cleric is Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous, who has raised the ire of Australian Marriage Equality director Rodney Croome, a native of that island. It is no mystery that the archbishop — and every other bishop of the Catholic Church up… Read more »
http://www.thediplomad.com/2015/07/our-new-and-smart-diplomacy-at-work.html
“Our*” Ambassador in the Dominican Republic having a big gay pool party in honor of the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage.
*Quotation marks mine.
““I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth day of April next, be observed throughout the United States as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and to devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call in mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past… Read more »
I must say, referring to the Obergefell decision as Obergefail is rather like the Black Knight insisting that it’s only a flesh wound. And, yes, it’s an example of happy talk.
:( I liked it. Can’t we have SOME happy talk…isn’t this happy talk? “These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have
peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I
have overcome the world.” John 16:33
Did Obergefell win his case? Or did his case fail? If he failed to have the laws against gay marriage thrown out all over the country, how did the media get it so wrong? They keep saying he accomplished his hoped for goal. Are they all lying? Or were the laws against gay marriage invalidated? And if so, how is that a failure?
Whistling past the graveyard and trying to wish reality away won’t work. Obergefell didn’t fail; he won big.
I see in Rev. Wilson’s latest he refers to some theories of resistance as emanating from Swamp Whackadoo. I would be very surprised if he doesn’t have in mind the Christians on here and elsewhere fantasizing about overthrowing the government. I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
I’m late to the party, but the subject is just a relevant, if not more so. They were clamoring for “gay marriage’ as if they actually wanted “marriage.” Nothing could be further from the truth. What they actually wanted was a new, advanced staging area for forcing affirmation from society, at every level, by every person. This is easily evidenced by sodomites viciously attacking county clerks who refused to issue them marriage licenses with lawsuits and job loss, even though someone else was readily available to do it without a minute delay. But they HAD to have the most unwilling… Read more »