Gay Marriage, the Bludgeon of Bigotry
How radicals are attempting to rewrite the 1st Amendment
The latest squirmish over Gay marriage involves the decision to boot America's favorite chicken restaurant out of two airports by the City of San Antonio and the entity that runs the Buffalo Airport, Niagara Frontier Transportation Company. These actions once again brought the spot light on the relentless effort by radical LGBT activists and their supporters to redefine the first amendment. These radicals and their allies believe that the first amendment is no longer relevant in the new age of enlightenment related to homosexual marriage. Their philosophy was first made clear by radical gay activist and former American Civil Liberties Union attorney Chai Feldblum who was appointed to the United States Equal Opportunity Commission by President Obama in 2010, “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people.”
The founders believed that religious liberty was the first and foremost fundamental right of a ordered society. As the first right defined in the Bill of Rights, these rights are absolutely clear without any equivocation, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." These enumerated rights are part of America's founding document and make no mention of marriage or the right of two same-sex persons to marry. The US Supreme court in Obergefell conferred a right of same-sex marriage. The 5-4 majority based their opinion on a non-existent right not found in the constitution or prior legal precedent, a so called "right to dignity". So when comparing the two inherently conflicting rights, the right of religious liberty, free speech and association are fundamental versus the right of homosexual marriage which is conferred by a judicial opinion.
It is without question that the decision legalizing homosexual marriage serves to undermine the fundamental rights of Americans as enumerated in the first amendment. This paradox was clearly laid out by Chief Justice John Roberts in his Dissent, "Today's decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution... Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority's decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 2607. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."
Even so, the 5-4 majority in Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S 2015 made it clear that those who disagree with homosexual marriage have the right to do so as a matter of law. Justice Kennedy writing for the Majority held that , "Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here... Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."
LGBT radicals believe that their right to marry is the supreme right that overcomes even natural rights as given by our creator. Most instructively, the words of Presidential candidate and West Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigeg offer insight into this view. While attacking the faith of Vice President Mike Pense who while Governor of Indiana supported traditional marriage, Mayor Buttigeg made the following statement; “And that’s the thing I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand: that if you’ve got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.” Here Buttigeg knowingly articulates a false doctrinal belief which he ascribes to his own Christian world view. The Judeo-Christian doctrinal belief on marriage is a basic fundamental fact based both on the old and new testaments. Yes anyone can argue that the Bible is wrong or reject it out of hand, however when debating the tenants of the Bible while accepting its relevance for the faith, how can Buttigeg honestly overlook its teachings?
In particular, Genesis 2:24, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Mathew 19:6 made it clear that a husband and wife should be joined forever, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." The Bible addresses marriage in several of its books and dozens of verses referring to marriage between a husband and wife. In the area of sexual morality, the Bible is fairly explicit as found in several books in particular the first chapter of Romans. Thus the effort to knowingly distort the factual Judeo-Christian doctrines on marriage and morality is another form of religious bigotry that seeks to marginalize and mock people of faith. But while most Americans understand and are aware of the teachings of the Judeo-Christian faith as are radical LGBT activists; the radicals define those beliefs as a perverse form of bigotry in which dogmatic acceptance of homosexual marriage must be elevated above natural rights even though natural rights of religious liberty, free speech and association are specially affirmed as fundamental rights in the constitution.
Fresh from their Supreme Court victory at hand, LGBT radicals went after catering halls, bakers, photographers and shirt makers who had no issue serving anyone but who declined to participate in homosexual weddings by supporting a message which conflicts with their deeply held faith. Many businesses closed under the pressure and cost of litigation. The few who were able to fight eventually won. One such person was baker Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake shop in Colorado. In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission No. 16-111, 2018, the case began when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission received a complaint from a same-sex couple who asserted that Mr. Philips refusal to make their wedding cake violated Colorado's public accommodation law. The Commission ruled that Mr. Philips engaged in discrimination and Mr. Philips appealed the decision. The Supreme Court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Mr. Philips rights by expressing animosity toward the faith of Mr Phillips and the Supreme Court reversed the Commission's decision.
The court cited one of the statements from a Commission member which the court found troubling, "I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be—I mean, we—we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.” Kennedy who authored the decision rejected that opinion, "To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical something insubstantial and even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation."
This unchecked hatred of people of faith has even surpassed the hallmark of decency no matter how low the bar. As noted in the decision to expel Chick-A-fil from each of the two airports, radical LGBT activists and their allies not only cited the company founder's public statement opposing homosexual marriage, they cited the company's donations and association with venerable Christian not-for-profits such as the Salvation Army and the Fellowship for Christian Athletes which they labeled as "anti-LGBT" hate groups. The Salvation Army has a storied history providing meals for the homeless, shelter for the down trodden and helping those in need with a focus on their core mission, to preach the gospel message of salvation. The latter runs summer sports camps for inner-city youths. The sin according to LGBT radicals is their religious belief, the expression of their belief and even their association with fellow Christian entities.
To disagree or hold an opposing rational viewpoint in of itself is not bigotry. To engage in the public arena with a set of ideas or a belief in faith in which one supports or opposes a particular public policy is a right. The right of disagree is an American value. Hopefully one day LGBT activists and their allies will come to understand that the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights and the constitution are not a mere suggestion but are an immutable standard ultimately defined by our Creator.