Jailing a Woman of Conscience, Kim Davis

On September 3, 2015, a federal judge ordered county clerk Kim Davis to jail for contempt, since she, citing her religious beliefs and "God's authority," refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She stated:

• "You can't be separated from something that's in your heart and in your soul," Davis told the judge as she explained how the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide conflicts with the vows she made when she became a born-again Christian. I promised to love Him with all my heart, mind and soul because I wanted to make heaven my home.” 

• "I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God's word," her statement said.

Judge Bunning’s ruling seems to be more than extreme. Republican presidential candidate, Ted Cruz, charged that it was lawless:

• “Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

• “I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court decision.

• “In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage decision has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s [5 against 4] decision was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it. 

And several have bravely chosen to defy it. And how is the Court’s ruling illegal? The American Family Association writes:

• So the Court had precisely zero authority to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by overwhelming and bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, and signed into law by a Democrat president, Bill Clinton. DOMA makes it expressly clear that the business of defining marriage is an issue that belongs exclusively to the states. That is the LAW, passed by the elected representatives of the people in the constitutionally prescribed manner. If DOMA is to be amended or overturned, there is only one body on earth which has the legitimate power to do so, and that is Congress. The Supreme Court has absolutely no moral or constitutional authority to tamper with it at all. So if Congress by law has reserved to the states the right to define marriage, what has the state of Kentucky done about it? The people of Kentucky, according to the prescribed method outlined in its state constitution, have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, period. Kentuckians enacted their marriage amendment in 2004 with an overwhelming 75% of the vote. 

By overriding DOMA and the vote of 75% of Kentuckians, the five Supreme Court progressives have elevated ideology over the Constitution and a concern for the overall well-being of our nation. Their decisions can only serve to alienate, embitter, and breed greater distrust.

Our nation was not always so intolerant of religious belief. The secularism of our Founding Fathers bears little resemblance to the militant, coercive “secularism” of today. The historian, Edwin Scott Gaustad, quotes perhaps our most un-Christian Father to this effect:

• “Almighty God hath made the mind free.” It follows therefrom that mankind should do all that it can to keep minds unshackled and un-coerced. Let us consider, Jefferson noted, that if an all wise and powerful God restrained himself from coercing either the bodies or the minds of men and women, how utterly absurd it must be for “fallible and uninspired men” to arrogate to themselves the right to exercise “dominion over the faith of others…Be it enacted,” therefore, “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” One will suffer in no way for his or her religious opinions; on the contrary, all persons “shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” And whatever their opinions, this will in no way affect their citizenship or their rights. (A Religious History of America, 119).

Jefferson might not have been a Christian, but he respected Christian conscience and regarded State coercion of religious conscience as needlessly repressive, as did the other Fathers.

There were many other options the Kentucky municipality could have adopted in regards to Davis. They could have allowed Davis room to not have to violate her faith. They could have directed gay clients to other clerks.

This is something that has been routinely done in mental health clinics. A new rape-case client is not assigned to a counselor who had just been raped. A Christian therapist is not assigned a same-sex (SS) couple. There had been respect for people’s feelings and faiths. What would it cost to make such allowances!

However, this is rapidly changing. Two Christian students were dismissed from graduate counseling programs in two different state schools because they refused to acknowledge that same-sex marriage is morally acceptable. This is a far cry from the Fathers who proclaimed that government should in no way exercise “dominion over the faith of others.” Jefferson had insisted that all people “shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.”

In contrast to this, the Obama administration eliminated certain rights of health care professions to not have to participate in activities that violated their conscience. Must today’s secularism compel a dogmatic secularly religious conformity in these matters? (And isn’t this an establishment of a State sponsored secular religion!) Must it force the pharmacist to prescribe the morning-after pill against his conscience? Must uniformity be imposed on all? On the same page of this World Magazine edition,

• A chaplain at a briefing asked a senior Pentagon official if a biblical worldview on homosexuality would be protected in the post-DADT [Don’t Ask, Don’t’ Tell] military. The reply he received was chilling: If you cannot come in line with the policy, then resign your commission.

We still don’t know how the repeal of DADT will play out for the chaplaincy and religion. However, this Pentagon official, reflecting the opinion of many others, is essentially saying, “The only religion will be our secular religion! We no longer allow religious diversity.” But why not? We’ve made provisions for the conscientious objector (CO) who refused to bear arms because of religious convictions. Why not also for the integrity of the religion which has provided the very foundation for this nation? In God of Liberty, historian Thomas S. Kidd writes:

• Whether evangelical or rationalist, most Patriots assumed that Christianity would, in some sense, be the cornerstone for the preservation of the new American Republic. (112)

According to Kidd, these sentiments were broadly held for quite a while:

• Through the era of the Civil War most Americans would continue to believe that the Christian religion should assist government in lifting people’s moral dispositions, so that they might contribute positively to the freedom of the Republic. Even the skeptical Thomas Jefferson believed that Christianity… “is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty.” (114)

The religion of the Founding Fathers allowed for religious diversity, as Jefferson proclaimed: “Almighty God hath made the mind free.” Therefore, this should guarantee the free expression of religious conscience. However, today’s secularism wants to place us in shackles: “You must believe in SS marriage, or else! No alternative speech will be tolerated!”

Our Founding Fathers were wise. They realized that by compelling religious conformity, they would not only be promoting a State religion, but also would jeopardize any possibility of unity. Meanwhile, today’s aggressively militant secularistic religion is placing this unity in jeopardy.

After Judge Bunning’s decision:

• Hundreds of people chanted and screamed, "Love won! Love won!" as word of these decisions reached the crowds outside the federal courthouse. (OneNewsNow)

Love didn’t win! Had love won, diversity of faith and freedom would have been upheld. Perhaps Davis might have been relieved of the responsibility of issuing marriage licenses or perhaps SS marriage requests might have been re-routed elsewhere.

No! Love didn’t win! Intolerance and the pressures for uniformity of belief and social conformity won! The very consensus that had once made this country great has been shattered and, with it, its vitality.

Gay Marriage, the Supreme Court, and Gross Hypocrisy

Predictably, the Supreme Court split along ideological lines, voting 5 to 4 in favor of gay marriage, making it legal for the entire nation.

President Barack Obama also responded predictably:

• "This ruling is a victory for America. This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free."

Certainly, all Americans must be treated as equals, but this isn’t the point. The law has never treated behaviors as equal; nor should it. In fact, discrimination is the very essence of justice. It is the law’s duty to convict the perpetrator of criminal behavior and to defend the innocent.

I also agree with the President that “When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free." However, the very opposite thing is happening in the wake of pro-gay rulings. The rights and speech of those who believe in traditional marriage are being violated. For example:

• An Iowa Christian couple has lost their livelihood, because they believe in natural marriage. Richard and Betty Odgaard ran Görtz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa -- a beautiful wedding chapel, art gallery, flower shop, and bistro.  They had been serving happy customers in the renovated stone church for 11 years. That is, until homosexuals from Des Moines targeted their Christian business, to use as a tool of the gay agenda.

• A Pentagon spokesman has just said in writing that Christian troops will be punished and court-martialed if they dare to talk about their personal faith in Jesus Christ. 

Such violations of our constitutionally guaranteed rights are escalating along with the gay political agenda. Why doesn’t the President apply this same principle - “When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free" – to others! Would you call it “hypocrisy?” I certainly would!

The Supreme Court’s deciding vote was cast by Justice Kennedy, who argued:

• "Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser."

Is Kennedy truly concerned about the welfare of children? Why then isn’t he concerned about the myriad of studies showing the high price paid by these future parents in terms of abbreviated lives, STDs, mental health issues, domestic violence, and substance abuse? Why does he seem to be dismissive of the overwhelming number of studies showing that children fare far better with their biological parents?

Does he really care about the children? Do any of those who voted in favor of gay marriage?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Discrimination, and the First Amendment

The US Supreme Court recently upheld Hobby Lobby’s First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty. The crafts store chain had charged that the Affordable Care Act required them to violate their faith by requiring them to provide insurance to their employees covering birth control and anti-abortive pills.

However, many complained that this decision provided Hobby Lobby and others with a license to discriminate. In an interview with Katie Couric, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lamented:

• "I certainly respect the belief of the Hobby Lobby owners. On the other hand, they have no constitutional right to foist that belief on the hundreds and hundreds of women."

Ginsburg didn’t explicitly claim that the decision granted employers the right to discriminate. However, she claimed something more extreme - that the decision granted Hobby Lobby the “right to foist that belief on… women.” Does it?

The Hobby Lobby (HL) owners have a constitutional right to live according to their religious faith. While some have claimed that such guarantees do not apply to businesses, others have pointed out that if these guarantees apply only to our private lives, they are useless, meaningless, and the First Amendment is just a waste of ink.

It is unclear how Hobby Lobby’s rights “foist [their] belief… on women” any more than the Affordable Care Act does so. Rather, isn’t Ginsburg foisting her beliefs on the entire nation! By simply not providing insurance that would cover birth control, it is hard to see how HL is coercing anyone to believe in a certain way.

All laws discriminate. They either prescribe or proscribe certain behaviors. If this is so, then the more appropriate question is this – “Which laws discriminate in a needful way and which don’t.”  Is coercing employers to provide birth control insurance absolutely needful?”

We respect business owners’ rights to discriminate all the time. Many stores have signs reading, “No shoes or shirt; no service!” We respect that and don’t haul the shop-owner into court for discriminating. Why the double-standard when it comes to Christians refusing to partake in what they regard as sinful!

Hobby Lobby has not been given the right to discriminate. Women never had the right to require these drugs from their employers. HL had withdrawn no privilege. Following Ginsburg’s logic, all employers had formerly exercised discrimination – the foisting of their beliefs by not providing for birth control. This is ludicrous. Besides, HL has not been given the right to forbid their employees from purchasing such drugs. If this had been the case, Ginsburg would have had a basis for her argument. Ironically, it is Ginsburg who discriminates against HL!

A government that wants to win the allegiance of the governed must provide guarantees against unreasonable encroachments. The USA had thrived by virtue of the belief that government should respect freedom as long as it did not seriously impinge upon the public good. The historian, Edwin Scott Gaustad, quotes perhaps our most un-Christian Father to this effect:

• “Almighty God hath made the mind free.” It follows therefrom that mankind should do all that it can to keep minds unshackled and un-coerced. Let us consider, Jefferson noted, that if an all wise and powerful God restrained himself from coercing either the bodies or the minds of men and women, how utterly absurd it must be for “fallible and uninspired men” to arrogate to themselves the right to exercise “dominion over the faith of others…Be it enacted,” therefore, “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” One will suffer in no way for his or her religious opinions; on the contrary, all persons “shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” And whatever their opinions, this will in no way affect their citizenship or their rights. (A Religious History of America, 119).

Ginsburg’s disdain for the free exercise of religion is at variance with the sentiments expressed by Jefferson. For almost two centuries, our nation honored these very sentiments. For this reason, the Supreme Court was reluctant to enforce conformity, even when it would come at a great cost to the nation. It deemed that a dissenter of religious conscience could opt from fighting for his nation. The Court and the nation rightly understood that compelling conformity in non-essential areas would breed alienation, contempt, and disdain for authority. In contrast to this, the Affordable Care Act would have compelled people of conscience to violate their conscience.

Must our freedom of religion be safeguarded? Is it essential to the well-being of this nation? Clearly, Justice Ginsburg doesn’t think so. However, in his 1796 Farewell Address, the beloved George Washington reiterated this broadly accepted sentiment:

• Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars…The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (Thomas S. Kidd, God of Liberty, 112)

According to Washington and the vast majority of the Founding Fathers, morality could not prevail without the belief in God. If this is so, should not our freedom of religion be safeguarded?

A Government that Fails to Respect Religion Fails to Respect its People

More than 60 lawsuits have been filed against the Affordable Care Act. ObamaCare requires most employers to provide contraception at no cost to employees, even if it violates their religious convictions and also the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. According to the Religion News Service, the administration is making few concessions:

• The Obama administration on Friday (June 28) issued final rules for religious groups for its controversial contraception mandate, maintaining its position on who qualifies for religious exemption and allowing no carve-outs for [religious] private business owners.

According to Gregory S. Baylor, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom:

• “The Obama administration insists on waging war on religious freedom, and the final rule issued today confirms that…On multiple levels, the president is articulating what is arguably the most narrow view of religious freedom ever expressed by an administration in this nation’s history.”

It would be one thing if the administration could demonstrate that it has a prevailing interest in limiting religious freedom in this regard. Certainly, if any religion required the sexual molestation or the sacrifice of their children to the gods, the administration would have a prevailing interest to step in.

However, the refusal of a religious employer to bankroll their employees’ sexual behavior does not seem to represent a prevailing state interest. At least, no one has tried to make such a case. Nevertheless, this deficiency did not prevent Sarah Lipton-Lubet, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, to applaud this administration’s continuing pressure on religious employers to provide insurance for procedures they regard as religiously offensive:

• “With this rule, the administration continues to stand by women and our families and refuses to let employers use religion to discriminate.”

What does it mean to “use religion to discriminate?” This saying is no more than a mindless mantra used to deaden thinking. After all, doesn’t every law discriminate? Doesn’t the 60 mph speed limit discriminate against those who wish to drive beyond this limit? Isn’t every judgment predicated upon values/religious judgments? Cannot this charge – using “religion to discriminate” - also be brought against the secularist? Aren’t the religion, worldview, philosophy and values of this administration being used to discriminate against those who believe it is immoral to be coerced into providing services that violate their conscience? If Christianity is vilified because it makes religious value judgments, why can’t this administration also be vilified for the same reason? Requiring the provision of birth control pills is no less religious that resisting this provision.

Isn’t it therefore hypocritical to charge Christians for “discriminating,” when it is this administration that is discriminating against Christians, especially in light of the protections granted by the Constitution? How can the ACLU charge that Christians are discriminating by simply refusing to pay for someone else’s birth control pills? Who is discriminating against whom? It is like putting a gun to the head of Christian employers and threatening to shoot if they don’t provide them with birth control pills.

This is not a difficult issue to resolve, as one attorney observed:

• “The easy way to resolve this would have been to exempt sincere religious employers completely, as the Constitution requires…Instead, this issue will have to be decided in court.”

Interestingly, our government has never been so coercive. Traditionally, the nation has respected diversity. The Supreme Court approved the classification of “conscientious objector” for those who could demonstrate a sincere religious conviction against warfare, even though this ruling negatively impacted the others who would then have to fill the gap. The Court allowed Jehovah’s Witnesses the right to not Pledge Allegiance. However, this historical respect for religious diversity is quickly disappearing in this administration’s mad quest for moral uniformity.

Meanwhile, Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, claims that people of faith must conform to the times:

• “The government has already bent over backwards to accommodate these groups…These churches are out of step with the times, and it’s time for the government to stop bending.”

Why must the church fall into “step with the times?” Must everyone jump on the bandwagon of today’s social fashions? According to Lynn, religion must be no more than an advocate of the status quo, a mindless, blind mirror of the times. Consequently, in the thinking of many, it is illegitimate for religion to claim a transcendent inspiration that can possibly trump the prevailing moral order.

Has Lynn considered the implications of his reasoning? If there is nothing transcendent to trump our social whims, then there is no way to contest Hitler’s program. He too argued that Germans had to be in “step with the times.”

It is ironic to find liberals, who had understandably been mistrustful of power and police states, now advocating “for the government to stop bending,” but instead for everyone else to bend in the direction of power. Why?  Simply because the churches will not conform to “the times!” And why should we?

The requirement that religious employers bankroll the sexual behaviors of their employees is frivolous. If our rights can so easily be trampled by such frivolity, this sets a dangerous precedent that whenever the interest of the government clashes for the free exercise of religion, the government wins! Lynn should not be so myopic. He should instead be concerned that the next administration might trample down his rights!

Perhaps even more troubling, if the administration succeeds in coercing Christian employers to compromise their faith, the slippery slope becomes an unavoidable reality:

• Well, I compromised on this mandate. No big deal! I can also compromise on paying taxes, lying, or satisfying my own sexual, extra-marital needs.

To capitulate is to harden our conscience. Once we capitulate and fail to repent, we open the door for further compromises. If we then see what has happened to us and repent, we will either be forced out of business by these mandates or go to jail. It’s that serious!

As the Fed grows bigger, we grow smaller. Conformity becomes compulsory! We become an empty shell, too small to resist the indoctrinating voices swirling around us and too shamed by our compromises to exercise our own voice.

Same-Sex Marriage, Equal Rights and the Redefinition of America

Same-sex marriage (SSM) is now before the United States Supreme Court. The State of California had, by popular vote, passed Proposition 8, limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. However, it was subsequently overturned by a California court as “unconstitutional.”

The plaintiff, Paul Katami, had been prevented from marrying his gay partner in California. His appeal is based upon the contention that laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples represent discrimination – the denial of his rights:

• "Stigma is stigma. And discrimination is discrimination," Katami told CNN. "I think that any time there's discrimination in the country, it needs to be addressed and it needs to be taken care of. And that's why we feel that anytime in our history when there's been racial discrimination or sexual discrimination of orientation, or in particular marriage at this point, that we always bend toward the arch of equality."

Katami compares apples and oranges - marriage discrimination to “racial discrimination or sexual discrimination.” However, this equation fails to compute. While SSM is about behavior and a new institution, the other forms of discrimination pertain to the very nature of the person – their race and sex.

It is not enough to allege “discrimination.” All laws discriminate against one form of behavior or another – paying taxes, operating motor vehicles… Instead, this question must be adjudicated, not in terms of whether or not they discriminate – they do discriminate – but rather whether the laws discriminate in a just manner.

Katami claims that laws that restrict marriage to heterosexual couples are unjust:

• "This is about our equality," said Paul Katami, one of the plaintiffs in the California case. "This is about our freedom and our liberty. So we are not trying to topple marriage. We are not trying to redefine marriage. What we are trying to say is that equality is the backbone of our country."

Is SSM really a matter of equality? Homosexuals are free to marry anyone they want in their own churches. Instead, the issue is about legal and social acceptance and the promotion of a lifestyle that is highly self-destructive in terms of just about every indicator – lifespan, suicide, domestic violence, substance abuse, STDs, depression, and other mental health issues.

If Katami and other proponents of SSM are serious about “equality,” why aren’t they talking about “equality” for polygamists? Why should they be the subject of discrimination?

I raise this issue because in order to assess the coherence and viability of a principle – “discrimination,” “rights,” “fairness” – we need to examine how it plays out in related areas. Why should “equality” just pertain to SSM? And if this principle of “equality” is to govern our understanding of marriage, on what basis can “equality” be denied to minors? So far, I haven’t heard any proponents of SSM bring minors into the equation. If they did bring minors and pedophiles into the equation – and they should if we are to rationally weigh whether or not “equality” is a morally coherent concept – the public might awaken to its frightening implications.

Such “equality” would mean that there could no longer be a basis to deny anyone their “rights.” Fifteen people could thereby demand their “right” to marry one another. To deny such an appeal would then be no less discriminatory than denying SSM!

And how then could society deny the “right” of a father to marry his daughter or a mother her son? Wouldn’t this be a denial of their “equal rights?”

However, such “rights” would undermine traditional marriage and family. What then is to prevent a daughter from being groomed as a sexual or “marriage” object for her father? Why shouldn’t he groom her from an early age to satisfy his sexual appetite? Isn’t this his “right?”

And what is to protect the wife in this sexualized world? What is to prevent the husband from taking on additional younger wives? Isn’t this his “right!” And opposition to this would also constitute “discrimination!”

What is to prevent teachers from grooming their students as sexual objects? Can we “discriminate” against this behavior? Can we deny them their “equal rights?” And how could the parents protect their children against this when they are enticed by their attractive teachers? Wouldn’t the parents be violating the “rights” and “choice” of their children?

If our marriage laws and sexual codes are unjustly discriminatory, then we need to comprehensively examine the claims of the SSM proponents regarding such concepts as “discrimination,” “fairness,” and “equality.” However, this kind of dispassionate examination is precisely what is being obstructed. Instead, shouts of “homophobe” resound from our institutions of “higher learning.”

Meanwhile, Katami claims that, “We are not trying to redefine marriage.” However, the promotion of such “rights” and “equality” destroy marriage’s protective walls. They also prevent the parent from protecting their children against sexual predators, who now are claiming their own “rights.” When any limitation, taboo, or boundary becomes “discriminatory,” traditional marriage and family become indefensible.

As the tide of public sentiment begins to turn in their favor, the SSM proponents now claim that SSM is the will of the people. However, is it truly the will of the people or the result of systematic indoctrination and manipulations by the power-elites – the media, the court and the university?

Marsha Segelstein, a former senior producer for CBS News, paints a sinister portrait of the pro-gay program:

• They thus are able to insinuate that opposition to gay marriage equals discrimination or hate speech. Tactics that…label opponents as bigots and homophobes and…characterize homosexuals seeking “marriage” as victims have been largely successful. In many cases, those who have publicly voiced opposition to gay marriage have suffered serious consequences. (Salvo, Spring 2013, 20)

The consequences can be brutal. For instance,

• In October 2012, the Chief Diversity Officer for Gallaudet University, Angela McCaskill, was placed on administrative leave for signing a petition supporting the placement of a referendum on the ballot in Maryland. The referendum was to give voters the opportunity to approve or disapprove of Maryland’s “marriage equality” law, which had instituted gay marriage in the state. Through a sign-language interpreter, McCaskill told reporters that she had been asked by a faculty member whether or not she had signed the petition. “In this very moment, she [the faculty member] determined that this signature meant I was anti-gay.” (21) 

In this hostile and repressive atmosphere, it is no wonder that many who oppose SSM are running for cover, and their voice is not heard. Threats of violence and even death are not uncommon. A 14-year-old who testified before the Maryland State Senate was threatened”

• “If I ever see this girl, I will kill her. That’s a promise”… Another attacked her family… “her parents should be exterminated”… “And now everyone knows her name, so hopefully she will feel what it’s like to be harassed and bullied.” (21-22)

The bullying has also taken on tangible forms. Gay activists had been able to obtain a list of Proposition 8 supporters. As a result, they vandalized churches and even stalked supporters at their places of work. Terrified supporters were coerced into making tearful apologies. Others were forced to resign:

• Scott Eckern, director of the California Musical Theater…eventually resigned after news of his $1000 donation spread… The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, Richard Raddon, was forced to resign when his donation of $1500 was revealed…A 67-year old restaurant employee who had donated $100 had to take a leave of absence from work after opponents launched protests against the restaurant. Businesses large and small – from hotels to insurance companies to private dental practices – were targeted with boycotts and protests. (22-23)

Even an elderly woman was targeted as she carried a large cross:

• Several men surrounded her and yelled in her face, and one of them knocked the cross out of her hands and stomped on it. (23)

Intimidation is a powerful change-agent. Along with massive doses of propaganda, it can influence the vote and even deprive many of their livelihood:

• A marriage commissioner in Saskatchewan…explained to a gay couple wanting to be married that he had religious objections to performing the ceremony. He offered to find someone else, and the couple was married. (23)

However, that wasn’t good enough. Now he and many others are facing suspension. Many college students are also facing suspension for the unpardonable sin of expressing their beliefs, and many college Christian groups are being disenfranchised from college campuses. Christian businesses are being threatened with closure because of their stance against SSM.

Not only does the gay agenda threaten to redefine marriage, it threatens to redefine the entire nature of our free society along with our freedoms of speech and religion. If we want to see what this redefinition looks like, Segelstein suggests that we look no further than Canada:

• Their experience shows that much is at risk: tolerance for religious beliefs, loss of parental rights over their children and moral upbringing, the very concept of heterosexuality as normative…and the basic freedom to practice religion without government interference. (24)

With the backing of mental health professionals, the pedophile community is also claiming discrimination and their entitlement to equal rights. Now, in many school districts, parents cannot exempt their children from pro-gay “sensitivity training.” If this trajectory continues, parents will soon have to subject their children to pro-pedophile “sensitivity training.” And why not! Pedophiles are likewise “born this way and have no alternative.” How then can a freedom-loving society discriminate against them, while not discriminating against gays! It cannot! If the door is opened to SSM, then it must be opened to everyone else who claims such a “right.” Soon, parents warning their children against the advances of pedophiles will also be guilty of “hate speech” and “pedophobia.”

Besides, if gay sex can be construed as something beautiful, so too will pedophile sex! (According to some, pedophile sex offers a valuable service to children!) They both depend upon the same logic - freedom of choice, an immutable sexual orientation, non-discrimination and equal rights.