Well, we knew it, but we never thought that Obama’s side would blatantly admit it. Same sex marriage is not so much about equality for homosexuals— it is about silencing dissenters. It’s all calculated.
"Woe
unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for
light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for
bitter!" Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)
This
is what the courts will use to ultimately shut us down and incarcerate
us. They are using the Christian bakeries and other businesses to show
that we are not being “tolerant” as they would have us be. But they knew
what our reaction would be. They counted on it.
“The biggest news from Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments isn’t news at all to conservatives: Same-sex “marriage” is a threat to religious freedom.
For once, that revelation didn’t come from one of the lawyers on our
side but from the Obama administration’s own attorney. In a rare moment
of candor, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli sent a clear signal on where this debate is headed, and it isn’t to the marriage altar.
As the President’s chief attorney made stunningly clear,
redefining marriage is not — and has never been — the end goal of
homosexuals. Silencing dissent is. And you can’t silence dissent without
punishing speech and belief — which is apparently what the government
has in mind if the Court rules in the Left’s favor.
Looking
ahead to a possible constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,”
Justice Samuel Alito asked a key question: “In the Bob Jones case, the
Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it
opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same
apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?”
With chilling honesty, Verrilli admitted, “It’s certainly going to be an
issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it
is going to be an issue.”
Translation:
If churches, religious groups, schools, or nonprofits won’t surrender
their beliefs on marriage, the government will make it hurt. A lot.
Imagine what’s happening to Aaron and Melissa Klein (slapped with a
$135,000 fine for their marriage views) occurring on a national scale
through hijacked tax exemptions, Pell grants, loans, and other
government contracts. If the Supreme
Court finds invisible ink granting a “right” to same-sex “marriage” in
the Constitution, it will be a declaration of war on principled
objectors. Any nonprofit that holds to a natural
definition of marriage — the same definition our own President held
three years ago — would have a target on its back. (Or a bigger target, I
should say.)
Is
it really a stretch, given the IRS’s history of harassment and
discrimination against conservatives, to think that it wouldn’t show a
“smidgeon” of prejudice? This ruling would give the political operatives
at one of the country’s most powerful agencies even more ammunition to
punish opposition. Resistance — even principled, seemingly protected
resistance — wouldn’t be tolerated. The IRS, which has been weaponized under this administration, will stop at nothing, including stripping tax exemptions, to force acceptance.
Recognizing the damage his admission could do, Verrilli tried to soften the blow by
suggesting that “different states could strike different balances.” But
if liberals won’t accept the long-held right of the states to regulate
marriage, what makes anyone think they would accept it here? Besides,
Justice Antonin Scalia fired back, “If you let the states do it, you can
make an exception… You can’t do that once it is a constitutional
proscription.” Carried to its logical conclusion, the government would
be in a position of punishing any non-sanctioned views. This is about
controlling beliefs and actions the government doesn’t agree with —
which is not only a direct attack on our First Amendment freedoms, but
an attack on what it means to be an American. This is what the Left has
been searching for: a selective, surgical removal of the conservative
voice.
And
the disadvantaged, poor, needy populations the Left claims to care
about would be the unintended victims. Under this brave new world of
“progressive totalitarianism,” as Ed Whelan calls it, churches,
Christian media, schools, or groups like FRC wouldn’t be the only ones
suffering. People around the world served by Catholic Charities, the
Salvation Army, Samaritan’s Purse, World Vision, and countless others
who depend on the generosity and efficiency of their programs would feel
that pain. So much for love being love.
As horrifying as Verrilli’s revelation was,
the Solicitor General might have done us a huge favor. No one has made a
better case for Congress’s Marriage and Religious Freedom Act than the
Obama administration just did. Under the bill that conservatives plan to
reintroduce, it would be illegal for the government to discriminate
against individuals, organizations, and small businesses who believe in
natural marriage. The same institutions that Verrilli vows to hunt down —
child welfare organizations, private schools, religious universities,
relief providers, abstinence groups, military religious contractors,
adoption agencies, and political nonprofits — would be spared the
government’s crackdown.
If you like your religious liberty, you could keep it. A concept that Tuesday’s proceedings proved is more and more foreign.” [1] - source
It’s coming brethren. They’re prepared to brand us as speakers of hate and intolerance.
Our founding fathers would weep.
Our founding fathers would weep.
MARANATHA!
No comments:
Post a Comment