Bermuda became the first country in the world to repeal a law allowing gay couples to marry Wednesday.
The historic change comes after Bermuda governor, John Rankin, approved a bill Wednesday that reversed the nation’s 2017 Supreme Court ruling allowing gays to marry, according to the U.K. Independent.
The passage of the bill followed its approval by both the House and Senate in December. Both chambers approved the bill by wide margins.
Critics say that the move is a direct affront to both the LGBT community as well as a removal of what many deem a civil right for Bermudian citizens.
Conservatives applauded the action as a move that affirms and stabilizes a more traditional view of family.
“Governor Rankin and the Bermuda Parliament have shamefully made Bermuda the first national territory in the world to repeal marriage equality,” Ty Cobb, the Human Rights Campaign Global director, told the Independent.
“This is not equality,” 64-year-old married gay Bermudian Joe Gibbons also said.
“Progress is precious. This should worry us all! #BoycottBermuda” tweeted GLAAD president, Sarah Kate Ellis on Thursday. GLAAD advocates for LGBTQ acceptance and seeks to “shape the media narrative” according to its website.
Bermuda still allows gay couples to enter into domestic partnerships.
Bermuda minister of home affairs, Walton Brown, said that the move isn’t an attempt to ostracize gay community members but is simply an attempt to balance the widespread opposition to gay marriage which exists on the socially conservative island while ensuring protections to same-sex couples.
“The act is intended to strike a fair balance between two currently irreconcilable groups in Bermuda, by restating that marriage must be between a male and a female while at the same time recognizing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples,” Brown said.
Gay couples who married in 2017 while gay marriage was legal in Bermuda will not have their legally married status repealed.
Bermuda’s repeal of gay marriage comes after Australia and Austria both voted to legalize same-sex marriage in December.
Germany also voted to legalize gay marriage in June.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/1280px-Rainbow_flag_and_blue_skies-1.jpg8511280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2018-02-08 23:42:112018-02-10 22:11:09Country Becomes the First to Repeal Same-Sex Marriage
A California judge has refused to advance a social agenda in his state that targets Christians who refuse to endorse homosexuality through their work.
In this case it was baker Cathy Miller of Tastries Bakery who was put in a state bull’s-eye because she refused to use her artistic talents to promote the “wedding” of two lesbians.
The state asked Superior Court Judge David Lampe to issue a preliminary injunction ordering Miller either to create wedding cakes for same-sex duos or be barred from serving anyone.
But Lampe recognized that the issue is not about discrimination against same-sex couples.
“The state is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The state asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” he wrote. (Read more from “Judge: Baker Has Right to Refuse ‘Same-Sex Wedding’ Cakes” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Leaving_Seattle_City_Hall_on_first_day_of_gay_marriage_in_Washington_2-2.jpg19362936Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2018-02-06 21:10:312018-02-10 22:23:06Judge: Baker Has Right to Refuse ‘Same-Sex Wedding’ Cakes
A group of polygamists and a “machinist” who claims to want to marry his computer are challenging homosexual “marriage” in Mississippi.
Chris Sevier and others filed a federal lawsuit reasoning that same-sex “marriage” is part of the religion of secular humanism, and since it is of a religious nature, the state has no right to recognize it over other faith-based “marriages” such as polygamy, zoophilia, and machinism.
The belief that two men or two women can have a marriage is a religious leap of faith, the plaintiffs argue. Therefore, government sanctioning it goes against the Constitution’s Establishment clause.
“Gay marriage is not secular,” Sevier said. “Just like polygamy, zoophilia, machinism, and other forms of perspective marriage are also not secular. All forms of parody marriage are equally part of the religion of secular humanism.”
By sanctioning same-sex “marriage,” the suit says, the courts overstepped their constitutional bounds by favoring one religious view over another. Either homosexual “marriage” is unconstitutional and the state has no right to recognize it, or homosexual “marriage” should be accepted along with other marriage beliefs, such as polygamy. (Read more from “Polygamists’ Lawsuit: ‘If Gay Marriage Is Legal, Then Polygamy Marriage Should Be Legal'” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Leaving_Seattle_City_Hall_on_first_day_of_gay_marriage_in_Washington_2-2-1.jpg19362936Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-09-26 22:43:412017-10-01 01:56:37Polygamists’ Lawsuit: ‘If Gay Marriage Is Legal, Then Polygamy Marriage Should Be Legal’
Chris Sevier says that if same-sex couples are able to get married and demand that Christian bakers make them wedding cakes, then he should be allowed to marry his laptop and demand a cake to celebrate the union between one man and one machine.
The self-identified “machinist” says he married his laptop in a ceremony in New Mexico, and now he has sued to demand that a Colorado baker — who is already in court after refusing to bake for a same-sex marriage — must be compelled to make cakes for him and his computer “bride.” He also has filed a lawsuit demanding that Utah recognize his man-object marriage.
It’s the latest battlefront in an increasingly thorny area of law, after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
While legal analysts said the case is a stretch, a judge in Utah has allowed part of that lawsuit to proceed, and analysts concede that Mr. Sevier’s claims get to the heart of how far the 2015 Obergefell ruling stretches when it comes to nontraditional unions.
“If marriage based on self-asserted sex-based identity narratives is a ‘fundamental right,’ ‘individual right,’ ‘existing right,’ based on a ‘personal choice’ for homosexuals, then clearly it is also a ‘fundamental right,’ ‘individual right,’ ‘existing right,’ based on a ‘personal choice’ for polygamists, zoophiles and machinists,” Mr. Sevier and several self-identified polygamists said in their lawsuit against Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Colorado baker they are challenging. (Read more from “Man ‘Marries’ His Laptop, Sues for State Recognition and a Wedding Cake” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/internet-search-engine-1519471_960_720.jpg640960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-07-31 19:41:152017-07-31 19:41:15Man ‘Marries’ His Laptop, Sues for State Recognition and a Wedding Cake
A farmers market and Facebook posts have opened a new front in courtroom battles over religious freedom.
It started when Steve Tennes, who owns a 120-acre farm in Charlotte, Michigan, expressed his traditional view about marriage on the farm’s Facebook page.
This drew a warning from an official more than 20 miles away in East Lansing, Michigan, that if Tennes tried to sell his fruit at the city’s farmers market, it could incite protests.
No one showed up to protest that August day last summer, though, and Tennes continued selling organic apples, peaches, cherries, and pumpkins at the seasonal market until October, as he had done the six previous years.
Nevertheless, East Lansing moved earlier this year to ban Tennes’ farm, the Country Mill, from participating in the farmers market when it resumes June 4. The city cited its human relations ordinance, an anti-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation.
So Tennes and his wife sued the city for religious discrimination.
As a Marine veteran who is married to an Army veteran, Tennes told The Daily Signal, this was consistent with his philosophy of defending freedom:
My wife Bridget and I volunteered to serve our country in the military to protect freedom, and that is why we feel we have to fight for freedom now, whether it’s Muslims’, Jews’, or Christians’ right to believe and live out those beliefs.
The government shouldn’t be treating some people worse than others because they have different thoughts and ideas.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal aid organization, is representing the Tenneses.
Neither East Lansing’s public information office nor the city manager’s office responded Wednesday to phone calls about the case from The Daily Signal.
East Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows told the Lansing State Journal that the city’s decision to exclude Country Mill—also known as Country Mill Orchard—from the farmers market had nothing to do with religious beliefs, but with the farm’s “business decision” not to host same-sex weddings.
“This is about them operating a business that discriminates against LGBT individuals, and that’s a whole different issue,” Meadows said.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, says of Steve and Bridget Tennes’ perspective, in part:
Plaintiffs support the rights of citizens and other businesses to express their views about marriage. Plaintiffs simply seek to enjoy the same freedom.
Yet, East Lansing’s policy strips plaintiffs of their constitutional freedoms, including free speech and the free exercise of religion, by punishing plaintiffs’ viewpoint on marriage, going so far as to prohibit Country Mill from continuing its long history of participating in the farmers market because plaintiffs publicly stated their sincerely held religious view that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
The suit also says the farm “has employed people from a wide variety of racial, cultural, and religious backgrounds, including members of the LGBT community.
Country Mill hosts a corn maze, birthday parties, weddings, and other events.
In 2014, two lesbians sought to be married in a wedding ceremony at Country Mill, but Tennes turned them down.
This occurred before the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage across the country.
According to his legal complaint, Tennes had a “civil” discussion with the women, and said his venue didn’t host same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs. But he referred the women to an orchard that held same-sex weddings.
In 2015, the two women were married at another orchard. On Aug. 22, 2016, one of them wrote a Facebook post discouraging consumers from doing business with Country Mill.
In response, Tennes initially said the farm would cease holding any weddings, writing on Facebook:
After this post, the East Lansing official asked Tennes not to sell produce at the market, saying he feared protests.
Tennes did anyway, and no protest occurred, according to the lawsuit.
In December, Tennes announced on Facebook that Country Mill would resume holding weddings:
This past fall our family farm stopped booking future wedding ceremonies at our orchard until we could devote the appropriate time to review our policies and how we respectfully communicate and express our beliefs. The Country Mill engages in expressing its purpose and beliefs through the operation of its business and it intentionally communicates messages that promote its owners’ beliefs and declines to communicate messages that violate those beliefs.
The Country Mill family and its staff have and will continue to participate in hosting the ceremonies held at our orchard. It remains our deeply held religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and Country Mill has the First Amendment right to express and act upon its beliefs. For this reason, Country Mill reserves the right to deny a request for services that would require it to communicate, engage in, or host expression that violates the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs and conscience.
Furthermore, it remains our religious belief that all people should be treated with respect and dignity regardless of their beliefs or background. We appreciate the tolerance offered to us specifically regarding our participation in hosting wedding ceremonies at our family farm.
East Lansing city officials determined that these public statements violated the city’s 1972 human relations ordinance prohibiting discrimination. That law was the first in the state to recognize sexual orientation as a protected class from discrimination.
But this brought up a jurisdictional issue on top of First Amendment concerns, the farmer’s lawsuit says.
East Lansing, the complaint says, “has no authority to enforce its ordinance based on Tennes’ religious beliefs and their impact on how he operates Country Mill.” The farm, it says, is 22 miles outside the city.
The lawsuit also notes that the city has not taken action against a vendor that promoted same-sex marriage.
In March, East Lansing sent Tennes a letter denying Country Mill’s application to be a vendor at the 2017 farmers market:
It was brought to our attention that the Country Mill’s general business practices do not comply with East Lansing’s civil rights ordinances and public policy against discrimination as set forth in Chapter 22 of the City Code and outlined in the 2017 market vendor guidelines.
“As such,” the letter reads, “Country Mill’s presence as a vendor is prohibited.” (For more from the author of “This Farmer Won’t Host Same-Sex Weddings at His Orchard. Now a City Has Banned Him From Its Farmers Market.” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Leaving_Seattle_City_Hall_on_first_day_of_gay_marriage_in_Washington_2-1-1.jpg19362936Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-05-31 21:27:422017-05-31 21:27:42This Farmer Won’t Host Same-Sex Weddings at His Orchard. Now a City Has Banned Him From Its Farmers Market.
It certainly wasn’t their intent, but Ben and Jerry’s, the famous, specialty ice cream company, has given us further evidence that same-sex “marriage” is not marriage. How so?
The company, which has long been known for its left-wing activism, went one step further this week. As a headline in the Daily Mail announced, “Ben & Jerry’s BAN customers from ordering two scoops of the same ice cream until Australia legalises gay marriage.”
That’s right. If you want two scoops of New York Super Fudge Chocolate on your ice cream cone, you can’t have it. You’ll have to settle for just one scoop or mix in another flavor.
This is Ben and Jerry’s way of sending a message: “We believe love comes in all flavours.”
As they explained on their website: “Imagine heading down to your local Scoop Shop to order your favourite two scoops of Cookie Dough in a waffle cone,” the company wrote on its website.
But you find out you are not allowed … you’d be furious!
This doesn’t even begin to compare to how furious you would be if you were told you were not allowed to marry the person you love.
So we are banning two scoops of the same flavour and encouraging our fans to contact their MPs to tell them that the time has come make same sex marriage legal! Love comes in all flavours!
Regulating Scoops is a Slippery Slope
You might say, “Well, this sounds somewhat stupid, but how does it prove that same-sex marriage is not marriage?”
I’ll explain in a moment. But first, Ben and Jerry’s should realize they’re heading down a slippery slope.
After all, will they ban three-scoop cones of any flavor until Australia legalizes throuples? And will they ban one scoop of one flavor plus two scoops of another flavor until Australia legalizes polygamy? Hey, love is love, right? And if I have the right to marry the one I love, how about the ones I love? Why not?
The absurdities go on and on.
As my assistant Dylan asked after reading the Daily Mail article,
And perhaps there’s a current loophole (and bigotry) to their current position. What if some chocolate ice cream identifies as vanilla? (I mean, who are they to be so primitive as to label all chocolate ice cream chocolate just because that’s what society has done through the ages.) Can you then go ahead and get a scoop of chocolate and a scoop of trans-flavored (chocolate to vanilla) ice cream?
In all seriousness, I understand that Ben and Jerry’s is not comparing human beings to scoops of ice cream. The company is making a point and showing solidarity. They believe they are standing up for justice and equality. I get all that.
Still, the nature of their protest is self-refuting, demonstrating the point that same-sex “marriage” is not marriage at all.
Let me explain.
Mars + Mars
Let’s say that chocolate represents men and vanilla represents women. You take one scoop of chocolate and one scoop of vanilla and what do you get? Something new. Something distinct. A unique blend of the two flavors. Two entities that are different and yet similar now become one.
That is a picture of marriage, which is the unique blend of male and female, the unique union of two different and yet similar entities. Borrowing imagery from John Gray, marriage is the union of Mars + Venus.
Going back to ice cream, what happens if you get two scoops of chocolate or two scoops of vanilla? What do you end up with? More of the same. The same multiplied. No change in color or flavor. Nothing new created out of the union. You simply have Mars + Mars or Venus + Venus, which does not equal Mars + Venus.
Do you see the point?
I’m sure gay couples will say that their union brings together very different parts and make them into one new, harmonious whole. But marriage is more than that (otherwise every friendship would be a marriage of sorts).
Marriage has always served the purpose of bringing together the uniquely different-but-same entities of male and female. Through the two of them becoming one, a new entity is created: a paired couple. And by design, that paired couple, biologically made for one another, can produce brand new life.
No same-sex couple in the world, however loving or committed they may be, can produce new life in this way. Nor can any same-sex couple demonstrate the fullness of marriage because it is missing the essential components of marriage: Not just two people, but one male and one female.
Quite unintentionally, Ben and Jerry’s has just reminded us of this reality. And while I do appreciate their zeal for cultural causes, maybe they should turn their attention to other pressing issues, like the health risks of obesity.
On second thought, they might not want to tackle that one at all. (For more from the author of “Ben & Jerry’s Proves Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Is Not Marriage” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/15950353237_4eff40a4bd_b.jpg7651024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-05-25 22:11:332017-05-27 23:22:35Ben & Jerry’s Proves Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Is Not Marriage
The Washington State Supreme Court today unanimously upheld a judgment against a florist who declined to create a floral arrangement for a same-sex marriage. She had previously provided the gay couple flowers for other occasions, but told them she couldn’t supply flowers for their “wedding,” because same-sex marriage was incompatible with her Christian beliefs.
The court held that the government can force individuals to provide artistic works and participate in events they disagree with. The nine justices claimed that Barronelle Stutzman violated anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws. The court found her personally accountable, meaning the state can seize her home, personal property, savings and bank accounts to pay any damages fines or attorneys fees awarded against her.
The Court Says: No Violation of Her Rights
A Southern Baptist, Stutzman lives in Richland, one of the most conservative areas in Washington state. She has been in the florist business for 30 years, having started out delivering flowers in her mother’s business. She now owns Arlene’s Flowers.
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the gay couple sued her in 2013. Ferguson has been making a name for himself aggressively pursuing a liberal activist agenda as attorney general, with aspirations for higher office.
In 2016, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom fined Stutzman and awarded attorney’s fees against her. Stutzman appealed the lower court’s decision to the state’s highest court.
The Washington State Supreme Court found forcing her to provide flowers for a gay wedding did not violate her constitutional rights. She provided services for people of other religions, the judges argued, and had no grounds for refusing service to anyone else. “As Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism,” the opinion said.
However, Stutzman was not objecting on the grounds that her services would constitute an endorsement of another religion. She was objecting on the grounds that doing that would condone and aid something against her religion, thus violating her freedom of religion.
She also objected on the grounds of free speech, not just freedom of religion. The court rejected her claim that its interpretation of Washington’s anti-discrimination law violates her right free speech.
A Case About Crushing Dissent
Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom which is representing Stutzman, denounced the decision. “This case is about crushing dissent. In a free America, people with differing beliefs must have room to coexist,” she said. The ADF issued a press release explaining how the activist ACLU operates to force through these types of cases.
I will mention that the ACLU raised $24 million in a single weekend recently. And this is what is does with its treasure: file suit against a humble grandmother who was literally minding her own business on the day when she referred a long time customer (who she served dozens of times fully aware that he is gay) to nearby florists who would be willing to celebrate same-sex weddings. While ADF is providing, as we do for all of our clients, free legal representation, the ACLU can and will come after her for legal fees that may top out north of a million dollars.
The organization said the decision marked “a decisive blow against fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.”
ADF intends to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar case in 2014 involving a photographer who refused to service a same-sex wedding.
A page has been set up to help Stutzman. An effort is being made to encourage President Trump to sign an executive order protecting religious freedom. Others are talking about raising funds for her.
Stutzman says this isn’t about herself, but about the bigger picture of protecting the Constitution. She warned in an op-ed in The Spokesman-Review (in Spokane), “Does anyone really believe that a government that gives itself the power to force people to believe (and not believe) things and can order artists to create state-sanctioned messages will only use that power to bend one small-town florist to its will — and then leave everyone else alone?” (For more from the author of “Washington Supreme Court Rejects Religious Liberty for Florist, Puts Her Assets at Risk” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/flower-shop-1160371_960_720.jpg617960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-02-20 16:45:232017-02-25 22:15:06Washington Supreme Court Rejects Religious Liberty for Florist, Puts Her Assets at Risk
By now, nearly one year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, it should be clear that the aggressive and unreasonable elements of the LGBT movement cannot harmonize themselves with freedom for Christians and other conscientious objectors.
With few, commendable examples, the LGBT movement’s activist class, who advocated for same-sex marriage and who are now aggressively pushing for government at all levels to implement their morality through special rights protections, bans on counseling for same-sex attraction, and now gender identity protections, simply want no dissent.
Beneath their policy demands is a desire for approval and forced participation in a regime endorsed one year ago by the Supreme Court itself. But approval is not obtained when others still have a legal right to conscientiously object.
If you want more evidence, look no further than recent efforts to attack Mississippi’s law protecting the rights of people to opt out of being involved in same-sex marriages.
Instead of recognizing Mississippi’s law (HB 1523) for what it is—a series of reasonable accommodations with explicit requirements that the government not interfere with same-sex couples’ rights—some of the usual suspects have chosen to sue because the accommodation isn’t good enough for them.
For example, Section 3(8)(a) of the law states that the person:
shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the authorization and licensing of any legally valid marriage is not impeded or delayed as a result of any recusal.
And Section 8(2) provides that:
[n]othing in this act shall be construed to prevent the state government from providing, either directly or through an individual or entity not seeking protection under this act, any benefit or service authorized under state law
The ACLU claims that the law makes same-sex couples feel different, and the Campaign for Southern Equality claims that they may be treated differently under the law; never mind the provisions cited above mandating otherwise.
Most tellingly, this group requests “any person recusing himself or herself under Section 3(8) of HB 1523 must treat all couples equally and shall therefore desist from issuing any marriage licenses to any other couples, including opposite-sex couples” (emphasis mine).
Never mind that no one has impeded any access to any licenses. So why demand that the clerk be ordered to desist from issuing all licenses if a same-sex couple would not notice any difference? Because, as seen in attacks on recusing judges elsewhere, this is about suppressing religious expression. The activist class can’t stand the idea that someone would not agree with their same-sex marriage, so they seek to stop the expression of these dissenting views—all in the name of “equality.”
The last group of plaintiffs to challenge HB 1523 claims that the law is invalid because it only allows people to opt out of the regime who hold certain beliefs. Never mind that that’s the point of opting out; no one is violating the consciences of those who support same-sex marriage. Such religious accommodations have been permitted in our laws in numerous ways for many years. Yet when it comes to the progressive LGBT agenda, there shall be no dissent.
The ACLU and like-minded allies don’t just want court-imposed same-sex marriage. They want approval from everyone else for these same-sex marriages. This approval is not gained by exempting an individual from participation in a same-sex marriage, but by forcing them to participate.
The legalization of same-sex marriage has not slowed the push for these coercive policies. After Obergefell, same-sex marriage licenses are being obtained without delay—but that’s not satisfactory to the activist class of the LGBT movement, who still has the same desire to stomp out any disagreement.
Ask yourself: who is being reasonable here?
On the one year anniversary of Obergefell, we have our answer. The question is what the future will hold. Will we as a society incline toward accommodation of religious views, or intolerance and suppression of deeply-held beliefs?
We must get this right, for our survival as a free and pluralistic nation depends on it. (For more from the author of “One Year After Same-Sex Marriage Decision, Dissent Not Permitted” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/White_House_rainbow_colors_to_celebrate_June_2015_SCOTUS_same-sex_marriage_ruling.jpeg6591023Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-18 00:24:192016-06-18 00:24:19One Year After Same-Sex Marriage Decision, Dissent Not Permitted
Legal marriage is a public institution, created by law to promote public policy and to further social interests including especially the well-being of members of society. – particularly of children, mothers and families. Marriage has great significance for many important private interests, as well, such as for religion, for family ties, family history, and especially for personal identity.
What is deemed a marriage for purposes of the law may differ from what is deemed marriage for other purposes, such as for a specific academic discipline (such as sociology or ancient history, for example), or for a particular religious faith, private association, ethnic community, or for a specific set of cultural elites, etc. Just because a union is or is not deemed a legal marriage, this does not prevent any social subgroups from considering it a marriage (or a non-marriage) for their own (extra-legal) purposes.
The battle of what marriage means in the law can be seen from one important perspective as a battle among special interest groups each seeking to have their preferred understanding of marriage endorsed by the law and implemented in the law. Behind the marriage debate are political-economic interests.
Obsolescence is relevant. That is, if a huge gap opens up between the law and the moral order of society, one or the other must change or law risks becoming irrelevant. This “gap” also has profound significance for the legitimacy of the law. The very legitimacy of the law and even possibly the legitimacy of the legal system and its institutions (e.g., the courts, the legislature, the government) will be undermined if the law becomes obsolete. Thus, if legal marriage deviates profoundly from social understanding of marriage, both the institution of marriage and society in general are harmed. (Read more from “Same-Sex Marriage Is Constitutionally Illegitimate, the Result of an Anti-Democratic Litigation Campaign” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/320px-Rainbow_flag_breeze.jpg213320Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-15 23:52:382016-04-11 10:52:38Same-Sex Marriage Is Constitutionally Illegitimate, the Result of an Anti-Democratic Litigation Campaign
Rev. Franklin Graham urged evangelical Christians to get involved in the electioral process and “make their vote count,” adding that the 2016 race is vitally important because homosexual marriage, abortion, and now transgender laws are on the table, marking “just the beginning of a moral onslaught on the nation.”
“[T]his is ridiculous,” said Rev. Graham,” for a person to be able to wake up in the morning and say, ‘You know, I feel like I’m a woman today,’ For a man to say, ‘I feel like a woman, I’m going to go into a woman’s bathroom.’ … This is ridiculous.”
Reverend Graham also said he has faith neither in the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party, but has faith in God and is urging people to live their faith, to pray, and to vote.
“What’s happened is the evangelical vote has not been heard, and I want them to get out and at least make their vote count,” said Rev. Graham in a Feb. 7 interview with Scott Slade on WSB Radio in Atlanta, Ga. “Now, I don’t have any faith in the Republican Party, and I don’t have any faith in the Democratic Party. I believe the only hope, really, is God.”
“And if we turn out as evangelical Christians — both for men and women who have godly principles and who are willing to follow what I would say is God’s leading in their lives — those are the men and women we need to vote for,” he said. (Read more from “Franklin Graham Just Released a Scathing Statement on What Gay Marriage, Transgenders Are Doing to America” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/franklin-graham-427mn050510-2.jpg255427Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-02-08 22:42:362016-04-11 10:52:55Franklin Graham Just Released a Scathing Statement on What Gay Marriage, Transgenders Are Doing to America [+video]
