Counterfeit Marriage Undermines Religious Freedom

Religious freedomLeftist social engineers try to make us believe that acquiescence to the homosexual agenda in no way affects those who recognize that homosexual behavior is immoral, unhealthy and aberrant.

As if common sense wasn’t enough, a quick look around the world at places that have submitted to the homosexual agenda reveals this as a complete lie.

Kalley Yanta explains:

Ted Cruz 2016


“If a pastor, religious group or person of faith could not agree with this new definition of marriage than they would find themselves in conflict with the law, and they could face legal consequences. In some other countries like Canada and Sweden, for example, ministers and pastors have been hauled before human rights bodies and even arrested for preaching about their religious views of marriage.”

You cannot have two diametrically opposed moral codes operating alongside one another in a given society. One or the other will have to have dominance, as a matter of practicality if not outright preference. One set of values must always win out over the other.

The evidence is overwhelming that the United States was founded on the Judeo-Christian value system.  This system recognizes that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. This system also recognizes that the Creator made males and females to come together sexually within the commitment of marriage, and that any other form of sexual behavior is a violation of the Creator’s design and purpose.  This system of values also recognizes that the family is the most important and foundational unit of any society, and attempts to undermine sexual normality and ethics is an attempt to undermine the stability and health of a society.

The homosexual agenda, on the other hand, insists on having its own way, in complete contradiction to science, morality, practicality, and the health and welfare of society. It is the epitome of a self-centered philosophy. It demands not merely acquiescence or “tolerance” of this behavior, but full-fledged acceptance and validation. It expects society to reward those who behave in this fashion with status and privileges that they have not earned–status and privilege awarded to those who do the heavy lifting of creating and raising the next generation of society in a healthy and stable fashion.

Society must wake up the dangerous precipice it is being fooled into marching toward, before it is too late and the suffering of coming generations becomes legion.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • thisoldspouse

    “You cannot have two diametrically opposed moral codes operating
    alongside one another in a given society. One or the other will have to
    have dominance, as a matter of practicality if not outright preference.
    One set of values must always win out over the other.”

    This really is the crux of the issue. It is even recognized by the Left, as when Obama’s choice for EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldbloom admitted, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

  • retiredday

    “You cannot have two diametrically opposed moral codes operating alongside one another in a given society.”

    I agree with thisoldspouse that this is the crux of the issue. There is a difference between “cultural diversity” and moral relativism. Before the PC crowd began to re-shape society with the relativism of moral equivalency, we already had what was called a pluralistic society. Pluralism allows for a diversity of belief systems and lifestyles, all equally subject to the same legal and moral constraints. That concept — E Pluribus Unum — is what has held the United States, with all its real communities, together.

    “Counterfeit marriage”, as Mr. Ellis has aptly called it, assaults that very concept because it undermines the integrity of equality before the law. Homosexuals have always had legal equality regarding marriage. That equality allows for them to marry someone of the opposite gender, because that’s what marriage is.

    But homosexuals who complain about not being treated equal are in fact demanding special treatment and special laws, with the desired result that their “moral code” is to be considered equivalent to traditional, historical Biblical morals — the very system of morals under which our society was established, and to which most Americans still ascribe.

    The laws of society should reflect the values of the majority. That is why for the last fifty years the gay agenda has been so aggressive in changing public opinion through activism in education, the courts and politics. The end result of all this is to divide the American people.

    Any society that really believes “right” and “wrong” are no longer morally absolute is weak and vulnerable. No society can remain viable and strong without moral integrity. The strength of any culture is its moral and religious foundation. When the law allows for differences in morality and provides special exceptions and tolerance for individuals who traditionally would be considered morally degenerate, that foundation is cracked, weak and vulnerable. And whatever is built upon that crumbling foundation will come crashing down.

    • Bob Ellis

      Very, very well said, to the both of you.