Category Archives: gay marriage

McCarthy: Pastors, staffers prepared to deal with Supreme Court marriage decision – Illinois Review

McCarthy: Pastors, staffers prepared to deal with Supreme Court marriage decision – Illinois Review.

Frequent commenter to this blog Margaret McCarthy covers  Daniel McConchie, Vice President of Government Affairs for Americans United for Life, in a Grayslake IL presentation, including threats to conscience, including:

Here in Illinois, [where] Holy Family Catholic Church in Inverness is faced with a lawsuit over employment discrimination by Colin Collette because he was fired when he married his male partner.

In Illinois, we have had The “Illinois Right of Conscience” [as] one of the strongest protections for religious objections . . . successfully used to protect a Catholic pharmacist from civil penalty when he refused to supply a customer with abortificient drugs.

Currently, SB 1564 . . . passed and . . . before the General Assembly, would weaken those protections.

Chicago Tribune columnist and blogger Dennis Byrne gave us a look at this book in April as applying to abortion.

As if we weren’t looking, pro-choice forces this week are pushing an anti-conscience abortion bill through the Illinois Legislature.

Illinois Senate Bill 1564, which rewrites theHealth Care Right of Conscience Act, is designed to cripple or shut down  pregnancy resource centers, such asAid for Womenand theWomen’s Center, that offer womenalternatives to abortion.  Ironically, the bill reduces choices for women and takes direct aim at health care providers whose conscience (whether religiously inspired or for logical reasons) does not allow them to participate in abortions.

That means that workers atpregnancy crisis centers would have to violate their conscience by describing the “benefits” of abortion and refer clients to abortion clinics.

The bill is presumed also to cover same-sex confrontations, McCarthy reports:

For several years, the homosexual lobby has been aggressively seeking out businesses whose owners refused on religious grounds to provide services for their prospective weddings. When refused, the couples sued, citing discrimination based on already existing laws permitting gay marriage. 

McConchie cited numerous cases across the country of florists, caterers, wedding chapels, bakers that were singled out for attack.  Some were defended successfully, others were fined and/or put out of business.

McConchie was blunt about it, warning his Christ Church “Crossroads” audience, “You may not be interested in politics, but if you don’t pay attention, politics will roll over you.”


Fiery dissent from Supreme decision in same-sex case from a Louisiana supreme

Speaking for herself and two others, Justice Knoll tore into the nationals:

Justice Jeannette Knoll led the charge [fr dissent from what’s usually the routine incorporation of a decision], with a blistering criticism of “five lawyers” playing the “super-legislators” who imposed their “will over the solemn expression of the people.”

“Unilaterally,” she wrote, “these five lawyers took for themselves a question the Constitution expressly leaves to the people and about which the people have been in open debate — the true democratic process.”

Calling it a “mockery of rights” and an “utter travesty,” Knoll warns of the “horrific impact these five lawyers have made on the democratic rights of the American people to define marriage.”

It reminds me of Pope John Paul II telling theologians to stop discussing a woman priesthood.

The Supremes are too easily mocked as divines, telling the plebs what’s good for them. Adapting Pogo, we have seen the plebs and it is us.

Letter to Neil

Neil Steinberg

Dear Neil,

In regards to your letter to Cardinal George in today’s paper, thanks for “boinking,” a new word for my urban dictionary. Oh. No such word. Your substitute for something vulgar. Ho-kay, it’s not easy to make sense when you’re so boinking mad. [had “hoinking,” was corrected by its originator]

However, please distinguish between what’s essential to something and what describes it. You can say no marriage without sex without saying marriage is nothing but sex, can’t you? You can’t figure that out?

Moreover, is it possible you missed the cardinal’s argument, which is based on what a word means — its essence, we might say?

We could put quotes around same-sex “marriage,” but that would not stop the argument, though it would be a start. A new rule for copy editors? Put quotes around “marriage” when it’s been declared such by legislators in a sort of red-queen maneuver?  The Trib had quotes around “natural law” in a recent headline. So come on. Wide disagreement about a term, slap on the quote marks. Fair is fair.

And Neil, would you like to rethink your justification of something based on poll data. Everybody’s doin’ it, pickin’ their nose and chewin’ it is not a good framework for deciding things. Please. Look into that approach of yours.

And would you also reconsider your exaggerated dependence on biology. “Doin’ what comes natcherly” was a great show-song shtick. But as a norm for decision-making? Not so much.

Finally, Neil, do you want to spend your life going with the flow? Heraclitus, of all-is-flux fame, was a heavy thinker, but we can do better, I think.

Finally finally, not since the Albigensians has anyone accused a Roman Church official of overstating the importance of sexual activity. They preached sexual abstinence even in marriage, 800 years ago, and paid grievously for it, I am sorry to relate. Neil, you mean well, but look out.

Chickens home to roost on new religious egg

What we have here is the start of a new state religion, replete with doctrinal imperatives:

Dogma #1: A woman has the right, the unrestricted right, to make arrangements for the killing of her unborn child whenever such course of action is convenient. [I would add that abortion thereby becomes a sacrament.  Shades of Moloch.]

The others have to do with:

social recognition for romantic attraction . . . the people’s hero, Barack Hussein [as sovereign pontiff] . . . Christian faith [and especially the] Catholic Church [as new prime enemy] . . .

It’s from a St. Paul MN pastor.


Jesus on gay marriage

What did Jesus say, if anything, about gay marriage?  A lot, and to the point, says Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C.

He gives His perspective on this when He addresses the issue in Matthew 19:4-6. There, speaking to the institution of marriage, Jesus is clear when He says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

That Jesus was committed to heterosexual marriage could not be more evident. A man is to leave his parents and be joined to a woman who becomes his wife. This is heterosexual marriage.

In case you were wondering.  Akin has more on the point, including this:

We must not isolate Jesus from His affirmation of the Old Testament as the Word of God nor divorce Him from His first century Jewish context.

Read him in context to understand what he meant, that is, not to debunk it by making him simply a creature of his time.  Word to the wisdom, this.

Christian argument: they call it hate speech, don’t they?

Try this on for size as cogent argument vs. legalizing gay “marriage”:

FIRST-PERSON: Why not legalize gay ‘marriage’? (part 1) 
By Glenn T. Stanton 
May 10, 2012 

EDITOR’S NOTE: This column originally was posted in Baptist Press in March but is being re-posted in light of President Obama’s support for gay “marriage.” Read part two at

Glenn T. Stanton

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (BP) — U.S. Rep. Barney Frank infamously asked a question earlier this decade that has become one of the central questions surrounding the same-sex “marriage” debate: “How will my same-sex marriage harm your marriage?”

It gets asked constantly and is meant to be a discussion-stopper. But the problem is that it sees marriage as purely a private relationship, hermetically sealed off from all other parts of community life. It reveals a complete lack of understanding of what marriage actually is — not just in our country, or for people of faith, but across all human cultures. Marriage is what anthropologists call a “human universal” because it is found in all human cultures throughout time. And it exists as a heterosexual institution throughout the world and history, not in the majority, but exclusively.

But the real answer to Congressman Frank’s question is quite simple: “Your same-sex marriage will do nothing to impact my marriage. But your marriage is not what we’re debating in our nation. We are debating whether it is wise to radically and permanently redefine marriage in our nation for everyone. And that is quite significant indeed.”

First, same-sex “marriage” not only redefines marriage wholesale for everyone, but it actually deconstructs humanity itself. That’s a very strong and consequential assertion, but that is exactly what it does. Same-sex “marriage” essentially creates genderless marriage by saying 1), the fundamental male and female nature of humanity doesn’t matter in any way, and 2), the different parties to a marriage are wholly interchangeable. Male and female as the basic foundation of family — as well as society — simply become preferential, like your taste for Rocky Road or Butter Pecan ice cream. Solely a matter of personal taste.

But the way this really deconstructs humanity is that it says that you as a husband or father, or you as a wife or mother, have no real meaning or significance in your fundamental humanity — a humanity which always reveals itself as either male or female. In fact, same-sex parenting says your essence as a man or woman is found only in your reproductive material. What does a lesbian couple ask from a man in order for them to become parents? Only his sperm. In fact, this fact has been clearly admitted by lesbian activists in products they can purchase for the babies. A t-shirt or infant onesie proudly declares, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor.” No joke. And two men who want to become parents must go next door and borrow only an egg from the female half of humanity. “Want any help mothering your child?” the woman might ask. “No, we just got everything we need from motherhood thank you!”

Same-sex “marriage” and parenting reduces male and female/fatherhood and motherhood to microscopic reproductive material. How do you feel about that as man or women raising boys and girls to be good men and women? What kind of world will they enter adulthood in?

And because same-sex “marriage” declares humanity wholly genderless, it also redefines the family. If male and female are merely sentimental ideas, with no practical, essential qualities for family, then family, parenting and kinship radically change. An important 1996 essay in the gay magazine OUT makes this clear, admitting that legalizing same-sex “marriage” is “a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. … Our gay leaders must acknowledge that gay marriage is just as radical andtransformative as the religious right says it is.” (emphasis in original) They go on to say that same-sex “marriage” will be “one of the great social experiments in this nation’s history,” ensuring that “[r]ather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men — some of whom have raised the concept of the ‘open relationship’ to an art form — could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts.” 

Same-sex “marriage” would redefine parenting, transforming it from a biological into a legal institution. Even today, saying a child has a right to a mother and father has been deemed hate-speech.

” Even today, saying a child has a right to a mother and father has been deemed hate-speech.”

But same-sex “marriage” is also threatening religious liberty. Activists have tried to comfort religious folks by saying “your pastor will never be forced to perform same-sex weddings” — as if that is as far as religious faith goes. But there is a growing list of real-life ways that citizens’ and organizations’ rights are being trampled. Here are only a few.

— Catholic Charities had to shut down their large-scale adoption work in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. because they refuse to place children in same-sex homes and because they believe orphaned children should get a mother and father.

— Wedding photographers in New Mexico were charged with violating state anti-discrimination laws because they refused to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.

— The Salvation Army in San Francisco lost a $3.5 million contract providing important social services to the poor because it refused to provide domestic-partner benefits.

— Churches in Canada have been threatened because they refuse to allow same-sex wedding parties to use their social halls.

— A lesbian couple filed a discrimination complaint against a Methodist facility in New Jersey because it denied their request to use the group’s boardwalk pavilion for their commitment ceremonies. The couple won.

Chai Feldblum was recently appointed by President Obama as a commissioner of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). When asked what she thought about the intersection of religious freedom and gay rights, she bluntly said, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” She stunningly elaborated, “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

Same-sex “marriage” is not just about one’s personal marriage. It is fundamentally about how we define and understand marriage, family and humanity itself. And for the first time in the history of our nation, religious freedom is being asked to move to the back of the bus. And the reason is to make room for sexual and familial experimentation.
Glenn T. Stanton is the director for family formation studies at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colo., and is the author of the new book, “The Ring Makes All the Difference: The Hidden Consequences of Cohabitation and the Strong Benefits of Marriage” (Moody, 2011).Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook ( and in your email ( 

© Copyright 2012 Baptist Press

Original copy of this story can be found at


A compendium, actually.

%d bloggers like this: