Will Gay Marriage Now Lead to Sex With Ducks?

             On October 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to let stand several state rulings that allow gay people to marry. Fundamentalists immediately challenged the decision. Their bible states that what gays do is an abomination and their wickedness should not be rewarded by permitting them to marry. Many of the faithful are asking why the justices are mocking their religion. After all, this is a Christian nation (It is, just ask them), and as such, they should be free to continue pushing their intolerance on our society for the foreseeable future. As Pat Robertson of the 700 Club said, if homosexuals are allowed to marry, it’s a slippery slope where people will be then be able to engage in any perversion.

Garfunkel & Oates sum it up succinctly in "Sex with Ducks"

Gay marriage makes Christians angry. Sure, children are dying from a variety of diseases around the world, like AIDS, Ebola and West Nile Virus. Yes, people are being killed by volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and religious extremists in Africa and the Middle East. Mothers even have to explain to their seven year olds what to do if a gunman begins shooting up their school. But those are just inconveniences when compared to two people of the same sex wanting to profess their love for each other and marry. In that case, Christians must prevent it at all costs.

Why is it that Jesus never spoke a word about homosexuality?

    

Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas called the court’s decision “tragic and indefensible.” Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association said it was “unconscionable, unconstitutional, and un-American.” In other words, how dare the justices give gay people the same rights as homophobic, religiously dogmatic, prejudiced Americans? What good is being in the majority if Christians can’t use that power against those they don't like...especially when it involves an issue where they claim the right to interfere - the sex lives of gays?

Notice how each is cheapened by the other.

And why all this fuss? Because Christians believe same-sex marriages will devalue traditional marriage, just like when they order a Big Mac and someone else orders the Filet-o-Fish sandwich. It devalues their choice of the hamburger. Sandwich selection is a choice, just like sexual orientation. After all, non-gays remember when they chose to be heterosexual. It’s similar to when everyone chose their race. That’s why for centuries white Christians railed against inter-racial marriage. If god had meant for the races to sexually mingle, he’d have made us all choose one color. Caucasians were the dominant race for over three hundred years in this country and that was not to be diluted, or polluted, by mixing with a different skin pigment.

      The intolerance and lunacy hasn't changed - only the target.

One anti-gay marriage activist wrote,"Admittedly, society's interest in marriages that do not produce children is less than its interest in marriages that result in the reproduction of the species. However, we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a heterosexual couple's privacy to require that they prove their intent or ability to bear children." Invading the privacy of a homosexual couple however, is justified because they cannot bear children via their sexual relationship, so any recognition of their commitment should be withheld, and it is why Christians have a 'heightened interest' in preventing gay marriage.

Christians claim they will be forced, through silence or tolerance, to condone what they view as an attack on the 'natural order of things', especially biblical morality. Biblical morality is an oxymoron because the bible calls for gays to be put to death - as Leviticus 20:13 says - even though gays have harmed no one. Christians are also commanded to kill (usually by stoning) anyone who claims to be a witch, worships another god, or picks up sticks on the Sabbath. Frankly, I don't think there are enough stones in the world.

Everybody must get stoned!

Claiming that someone's marriage defiles your religion is like slapping someone for eating a donut because you're on a diet. Considering all the malevolence that exists in the world, the fact that a religion condemns two people loving each other proves just how evil religion is.

It’s simple enough; if you don’t like gay marriage…don’t get one.

You WILL believe. It's in the Constitution

Speaking before about 400 students and faculty at Colorado Christian University this past Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that secularists are wrong when they argue the Constitution requires religious references to be removed from the public square. He opined that a battle is underway over whether to allow religion in public life, from referencing God in the Pledge of Allegiance, to holding prayers at school events and town hall meetings. “I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion.” Scalia said.

           …and yet the First Amendment clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Where does it indicate favoritism towards religion? That a jurist on the Supreme Court can misinterpret the meaning is astounding! 

Antonin Scalia conjures up a whole new interpretation

Alright, let’s take Scalia at his word, that he really believes the First Amendment actually favors religion over non-religion. Which religion does it favor? There is not just one religion, so if we are to believe he means it, which religious faith is the one that guides us? Scalia is a professed Catholic, so should it be Roman Catholicism that is the moral compass and guiding light of our nation? Most Pentecostals, Baptists and Mormons will vehemently disagree with that idea. Should the Jews and Muslims be left out of Constitutional protection, or is it extended to them because they at least believe in some sort of supernatural entity?

                                     Whose altar do we bow before?

Scalia continued, “We do Him honor in our Pledge of Allegiance, in all our public ceremonies. There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution” meaning that in the past, secularists simply wanted the Constitution upheld. But no more. Upholding the Constitution has changed under his judicial guidance. It means the government is now free to impose religion, ill-defined though it may be, on all of us.

Justice Scalia suggests that we already acknowledge god in our pledge of allegiance, which is an odd position for him to take since during his school years the phrase ‘under God’ wasn't even in it. If we are one nation under god, which one do we stand under…Amon Ra, Wotan, Kulkukan, Zeus, Brahma, Quetzalcoatl, or The Great Spirit? It can’t just be the gods that Europeans brought over when they wrestled the American continents away from the original inhabitants. The native’s various deities were sacred and revered before the immigrants arrived, so those gods should be included in those we stand beneath. And it was only a year ago that Scalia admitted that he believed the devil was a real being, so he apparently recognizes Satanism as legitimate. Wouldn't it be logical then to include Satan as worthy of worship since Satanism is recognized as a religion?

Americas list of gods to worship continues to grow

Freedom of religion means the freedom not to worship at all. People can do what they like as long as they allow others to do the same without forcing it on anyone. Thanks to Scalia, we may have 'freedom of religion' re-interpreted as ‘we have to worship some god…but we have the freedom to choose which one.’ If the government gets to impose a religion on us, what happens if it turns out to be, say, the "Christianity" as practiced by Westboro Baptist Church? Would Antonin Scalia use the power of the court to force all Americans to adhere to Westboro’s concept of what god wants? In which case, who is going to protect us from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia?