For instance, a Methodist retreat center recently refused to allow a member of a polygamist cult to use a campground pavilion for a ceremony in which he would “marry” five women. The state of New Jersey punished the Methodists by revoking the center’s tax-exempt status—a vindictive attack on the Methodists’ religious liberty and use of their own property.
In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was ordered to accept polygamous “families” as candidates for adoption. Rather than comply with an order that would be harmful to children, and violated their own religious principles, Catholic Charities closed down its adoption program.
California public schools have been told they must be tolerant of polygamous “families.” But it will not stop with public schools. Just north of the border in Quebec, the government told a Mennonite school that it must conform to provincial law regarding curriculum—a curriculum that teaches children that polygamy is a valid lifestyle. How long will it be before the U.S. government goes after private schools?
Even speaking out against polygamy can get you fired. Crystal Dixon, an associate vice president at the University of Toledo, was fired after writing an opinion piece in the Toledo Free Press in support of traditional marriage . . . Fired — for exercising her First Amendment rights!
Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that polygamy was contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." They never intended their Constitution to be used as a hammer to impose polygamy on those who believe in traditional marriage. During the nineteenth century, The U.S. Supreme Court, on a number of occasions, affirmed that the First Amendment does not prohibit private parties and voluntary associations who support traditional marriage from "discriminating" against polygamous "families" by teaching traditional views or using their private property to promote traditional families exclusively. In one case, the Supreme Court noted of polygamy that, "It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world."
Opponents of traditional marriage appear to be left-leaning supporters of Big Government. They have no objections to expanding the power of the State to force others to recognize the legitimacy of their lifestyle. Federal Courts are acquiescing to their demands, and short-circuiting the rights of property and religious freedom to those who oppose polygamy. This movement represents a significant trend away from liberty and towards totalitarianism.
This is why I view a Constitutional Amendment defining "marriage" in accord with "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to be an essential step in preserving liberty and limiting the growth of government.
UPDATE: I've just been informed that I had all of the essential facts in error. None of the infringements of Constitutional liberties reported above -- which did in fact occur -- involved polygamous "families." Rather, the growth of tyranny is being promoted by proponents of same-sex "marriages." For the accurate facts and incisive analysis, see Chuck Colson's essay, The Coming Persecution.
4 comments:
Yeah, I knew it all along. You can tell by the fact that much of my article was plagiarized from Colson's.
Kevin -
You do realize the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment have survived side by side for quite a few years now, and will continue to do so.
The NJ Methodists in question lost only their tax exempt status, not their ability to deny marriage to any one they choose in the facility they own.
Catholics deny the right of divorced people to marry in their churches -- and will rightly continue to do so.
Until 1979, Mormons denied black men the right to marry in their temples. No law could force them to do otherwise.
Religious freedom will remain completely intact, even if same-sex couples have the right to enter into civil marriage contracts.
After all, if Fred Phelps can stand on his First Amendment rights to shout "God Hates Fags" at military funerals, what won't the First Amendment protect in this area?
Tom says:
You do realize the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment have survived side by side for quite a few years now, and will continue to do so.
No, I don't realize this. The First Amendment is dead meat. During the ratification process, several states refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights to guarantee that the federal government will not interfere with the religious preferences of states and municipalities. Nothing could be more obvious than that the federal government does just that in a most extraordinary way. The federal government tells schools what to teach and what not to teach (and religion and morality is what schools must NOT teach, even though Justice Douglass admitted that teaching religion and morality was seen as the primary purpose of public schools at the time the First Amendment went into effect). The federal government has even seen fit to reach down and amend the religion provisions of state constitutions.
The federal Constitution simply would not have been ratified if it had been known that the federal government could make the teaching of religion, morality and the Declaration of Independence "unconstituitonal" in local schools.
If you want to protest President Bush, the Secret Service will confine you to a "Free Speech Zone" so the President and his adulators will not be offended.
The only people who believe that the First Amendment means anything today are those whose ideas are approved by the federal government.
I'm not a big fan of the 14th Amendment.
The NJ Methodists in question lost only their tax exempt status, not their ability to deny marriage to any one they choose in the facility they own.
So "free speech" means my speech is free as long as the government approves of it, otherwise I have to pay a tax on it. Great. I'm sure Sam Adams and John Hancock would have loved that idea: the federal government taxes religions that it doesn't like.
Catholics deny the right of divorced people to marry in their churches -- and will rightly continue to do so.
But they will not be allowed to help orphans get adopted unless they send the kids to homosexual couples approved by the government, or to other government-approved parents who seek to destroy everything the church stands for in the minds of the orphans. Isn't religious freedom wonderful?
Until 1979, Mormons denied black men the right to marry in their temples. No law could force them to do otherwise.
Are you Rip Van Winkle? How long do you think a church would last in 2008 if it officially discriminated against blacks? Do you think the Mormons were unware of changes in government policy during the 1970's, such as the the IRS revoking the tax exempt status of Bob Jones University on January 19, 1976?
I despise racism, but I also despise politicians who take an oath to support a Constitution that notoriously denied the federal government jurisdiction over slavery and racism in the states, and then use federal force (rather than persuasion) to crush racists.
The 14th Amendment, on its face, applies to the states. It does not apply to a private university and does not prohibit such private institutions from denying admission to someone who advocates a social practice with which the private university disagrees.
Religious freedom will remain completely intact, even if same-sex couples have the right to enter into civil marriage contracts.
Religious freedom has already been destroyed. I say again, Christians in my conservative neighborhood are prohibited by the federal government from teaching their children in public schools that the religious clauses of the Declaration of Independence are really true. Everyone who had a hand in creating the First Amendment would be far more outraged at what the Bush-Clinton regime does than what George III did.
After all, if Fred Phelps can stand on his First Amendment rights to shout "God Hates Fags" at military funerals, what won't the First Amendment protect in this area?
I don't mean to sound insulting, Tom, but you're so frustrating for me. I know most Americans agree with you, and think as you do, and it's depressing sometimes.
In October of 2007 a federal court issued a judgment for $10 million against Fred Phelps for his "offensive" speech, which the court held was not protected by the First Amendment.
Most Americans dislike the First Amendment. They believe that if Fred Phelps or I say something that "offends" them, they have the right to call on the government to shut me down.
I can tell you're comfortable with big government. Americans today prefer government force over reason and persuasion. "Security" is preferred over "the animating contest of freedom."
At least you're in the majority, Tom.
Here's another report of homosexual rights trumping the rights of Christians:
Religious rights? Not for Doctors
The California Supreme Court, which recently legalized same-sex marriage, has ruled by a 7-0 vote that homosexual rights trump religious freedom. The ruling barred doctors, because of their Christian beliefs, from withholding unnecessary medical care to homosexual men and lesbians. The ruling says that under state law sexual orientation rights trump religious freedom.
Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state's law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."
Doctors at the Christian clinic referred the lesbian to another clinic, but the lesbian refused their referral - demanding that the Christian clinic perform the procedure. When the Christian doctors refused to violate their religious convictions, the lesbian sued and the Supreme Court gave her the victory.
This ruling will affect every business in California. If a similar victory in a federal court is won, every business in America will be affected.
For example: Alabama Fertility Specialists (AFS) has begun a campaign to bring Honda of Alabama to its knees because Honda will not cover artificial insemination for a lesbian in its insurance.
Honda advised their insurance carrier to "exclude domestic partners (same-sex partners) from ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) benefits including diagnostic services related to fertility/infertility..."
Alabama Fertility Specialists alerted the media, their supporters and homsexual groups about Honda’s actions and called on supporters and homsexuals to bombard Honda with phone calls and letters.
If this doesn't work, then count on AFS to sue.
"Bombarding" with letters is a First Amendment right. Suing to use government compulsion, coercion, and threats of violence when persuasion fails is un-American.
Take Action
Post a Comment