The ‘Gay Marriage’ Gauntlet: Time to Choose

fistIt’s never fun to be proven right when warning of some impending wrong. Many in the pro-family movement have long stressed that the cultural Marxist left’s belligerent push for the judicial fiction that is “gay marriage” was never about gaining “equal access” to this biologically exclusive male-female institution, as they profess, but, rather, is, and has always been, about control.

While there are many layers to unfold, the almost instant explosion in government-sanctioned, anti-Christian extremism on display post Obergefell v. Hodges, confirms the poisonous three-fold agenda that underlies the “social justice” mob’s flowery “marriage equality” propaganda. That is: 1) the ultimate destruction of marriage, 2) forced affirmation of sexual deviancy under penalty of law, and 3) the eventual criminalization of Christianity.

The destruction of marriage

Ted Cruz 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence; they want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

Masha Gessen, a lesbian journalist, activist and author, expressly admitted this fact in a 2012 interview with ABC Radio: “It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should have the right to marry,” she said. “But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there – because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”

Homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein echoes Gessen’s candid sentiments: “Demand the institution [of marriage] and then wreck it,” he once wrote. “James Dobson was right about our evil intentions,” he quipped. “We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”

The goal is to water down marriage until marriage is pointless. And as evidenced by the burgeoning legal push for polygamous and incestuous “marriages” – even for the “right” to “marry” a robot – sexual anarchists are well on their way to achieving this goal.

Forced affirmation of sexual deviancy

Here’s what Christian America is already experiencing from coast to coast. On Wednesday, civil rights law firm Liberty Counsel filed a request for a stay and an appeal of U.S. District Judge David Bunning’sopinion ordering Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses both in violation of her First Amendment right to religious free exercise and the biblical mandate that she must not participate in this explicitly sinful activity. Davis had been sued by the ACLU and two lesbian political activists.

“The plaintiffs in this case only sought licenses from Ms. Davis after learning of her religious objections to same-sex ‘marriage,’ and they refuse to obtain a license elsewhere,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Just as Justice Alito predicted in his dissent in Obergefell, secularists are trying to ‘stamp out every vestige of dissent’ by targeting people of faith who do not agree with same-sex ‘marriage.’”

Judge Bunning wrote, “Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk,” the ruling said.

“Judge Bunning’s decision equated Kim’s free exercise of religion to going to church. This is absurd!” responded Staver. “Christianity is not a robe you take off when you leave a sanctuary. The First Amendment guarantees Kim and every American the free exercise of religion, even when they are working for the government.

“Kim Davis did not sign up as a clerk to issue same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses. Her job duty was changed by five lawyers without any constitutional authority. At a minimum, her religious convictions should be accommodated,” concluded Staver.

Indeed, Davis’ oath as county clerk was to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of Kentucky. As Chief Justice John Roberts rightly observed in his Obergefell dissent, the activist majority’s opinion actually hijacks the democratic process and is in no way rooted in the Constitution: “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution,” he said. “It had nothing to do with it.”

The fact is that if Ms. Davis were to issue counterfeit same-sex “marriage” licenses, she would not only be disobeying God and directly participating in expressly sinful activity, she would be violating her constitutional oath.

The criminalization of Christianity

To her credit, Ms. Davis is standing her ground while the decision is appealed. Predictably, many leftists are now clamoring for her imprisonment. They want her held in contempt of court and thrown in jail for refusing to at once affirm homosexual sin and violate God’s commands. This is the new pagan orthodoxy. It’s “here, it’s queer, get used to it.”

Meanwhile, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) reports on “a Colorado Court of Appeals decision Thursday in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig, regarding a cake artist who declined to use his artistic abilities to promote and endorse their same-sex ceremony even though other cake artists were willing to do the job.”

“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live and work consistent with their faith,” observed ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco. “Government has a duty to protect people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally rather than force them to adopt the government’s views. Jack simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message with which he disagrees. The court is wrong to deny Jack his fundamental freedoms.”

The court affirmed an earlier order wherein Phillips and his Christian staff were not only ordered to bake homosexual “wedding” cakes against their will, but were additionally forced into pro-homosexual “sensitivity” propaganda classes.

And if they refuse?

Then they go to jail.

That’s how it works. Christian free exercise isn’t outlawed all at once. Judges across our fruity plain simply order from the bench that millions of Christians, just like Kim Davis and Jack Phillips, must either deny recognition of God’s natural order and Christ’s admonition to “go and sin no more,” or face prison for “contempt of court.”

Welcome to America 2015, where evil is good, men are women, judges are tyrants, and Christians are persona non grata. There is no more in between. The anti-Christ left has thrown down the “gay marriage” gauntlet. It’s either God or man.

“But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve. … But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).

Whom will you serve?


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:

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).
J. Matt Barber
View all articles by J. Matt Barber
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • Thisoldspouse

    Is this just more “same-sex marriage not affecting anyone else?” I really want to know what that looks like.

  • DCM7

    “Demand the institution [of marriage] and then wreck it”

    I doubt that every “gay” asking for “gay marriage” actually shares that motivation. I suspect most of them have other motivations, albeit not ones they’d really acknowledge themselves.

    I think many just want a sense of being “normal” that they have been denied (which, since they refuse to pursue actual normality, they *should* be denied). And of course many are simply reflecting the essence of “leftist” thinking: demanding to have what they refuse to try to earn, and resenting those who have it because they *have* earned it.

    • franklinb23

      Yeah, I don’t know who these two “activists” are. They don’t speak for most, though, and I have to wonder if they even speak for themselves.

      Seriously … who is going to seek to legally bind themselves to someone else - with all of the various risks and obligations involved - only to negatively impact the marriages of people you’ve never met? It’s absurd.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        I agree with both of you. I don’t think most homosexual activists and “useful idiots” are seeking the destruction of marriage; for most homosexual activists, it’s about the vain pursuit of a cloak of legitimacy for something that can never be legitimate.

        But there are a few “drivers” and “puppet masters” out there who DO seek the end of marriage, and pretty much anything that is good and right and positive. They are, at best, modern-day Visigoths, Vandals and Huns.

        Knowing or unknowing, though, the end result of participating in the counterfeiting of marriage is the same: the devaluing and perversion of that institution, and great harm to society.

      • Thisoldspouse

        The “rights” have been grossly exaggerated in this marriage issue, mostly as a tool to make a mountain out of a molehill, to cause alarm and garner sympathy for something that can be obtained in numerous other ways. Most of the time, it’s “tax related issues,” which are some of the easiest to avoid with some shrewd planning without the appelation “marriage.”

        As far as obligation, that is just a fiction. Marriage is, by admission of MANY homosexuals, a do-it-yourself/design-it-yourself structure. What part does “obligation” play in the new, deformed paradym of “marriage?” It has been shown MANY times that “committed” homosexual couples have no intention of practicing true fidelity with their chosen mate, and have even had to redefined ‘monogamy’ in their fringe subculture to mean only “emotional attachment.” So, what is the “obligation” of their new “status” but just to avoid burning their piece of paper that purportedly makes them “married?”

        • DCM7

          You know who else I bet is pushing for “gay marriage”? Divorce lawyers.

          • Thisoldspouse

            Naw. There is still plenty of demand with the casualties of the sexual revolution.