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?

Public Spectacles

While watching the local news Labor Day weekend, there were two stories that make me wonder if people really understand our Constitution and why we separate church and state in this country.

Brighthouse Network’s Central Florida News 13, or CFN13, repeated the two stories every hour for about 12 hours. One involved Apopka football players being led in a Christian prayer before and after their games. The prayers made some of the players and fans, who were from different faith backgrounds, uncomfortable and they asked school officials to refrain from saying them. CFN13 covered the story from the outraged-Christian-point-of-view with interviews of people all but damning freethinkers and non-theists for interfering, and for what they perceived as “stopping kids from praying”. The people who objected to the prayers were only asking that school officials and coaches not instigate or give the prayers recognizing only one religion.

Can you imagine what would have happened if one of them began saying an Islamic prayer, started chanting a mantra to one of the Hindu gods, or conducted a Voodoo ritual? The same people who think there is too much fuss being made over simple prayers at school events would be livid, and would insist that only Christian prayers be allowed at these functions. In their view, prayers to Jehovah/Yahweh are acceptable but prayers to other gods are wrong. Yet Christians have the same evidence regarding their deity that other religions have of theirs. Zero!
        I’m looking forward to the day one of the cheerleaders does this at a football game: 

Several parents were quick to point out that atheists were in a minority in this country and insisted Christians had the right to pray anytime, anywhere, with the insinuation that atheists should keep quiet since they were outnumbered. A free society is one where it’s safe to hold an unpopular view, which makes me wonder if we're a free society anymore. Christians might want to consider that sometimes a majority only means all the mistaken are on the same side. Ignorance has become a point of view.

Winter Garden City Council opening the meeting with a Christian prayer

The second story involved a man named Joseph Richardson who attended a Winter Garden city council meeting. Winter Garden Mayor John Rees told Richardson that he “may rise or leave the room” as they gave the prayer and the Pledge.

“I don’t believe I have to do that, thank you,” was Richardson's response.

After the prayer in the name of Jesus was concluded, Richardson was again ordered to rise. “Now, sir, please stand while we do the Pledge… please stand. Children have to do it in school, too,” Rees said. "You don’t have to say it. Please stand.”
       Richardson stood his ground, responding “I don’t have to do that.”

Rees seemed to take this as a personal affront rather than a citizen exercising his rights.

Richardson was abruptly told, “You have one of two choices, sir. I'm asking you to either stand or be escorted out [as we do] the Pledge. It’s just not fair to our troops and people overseas, sir.”

When Richardson still didn’t stand, the Mayor turned to the Chief of Police and said, “Chief, ask him to either stand or please escort him out 'til we get through the pledge,” the mayor said.

The officer walked over and asked Richardson, “What do you want to do? Do you want to stand or leave?” The man was quickly escorted out of the room.
        As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote in 1940, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."

Mayor Rees should know that citizens are within their rights to remain seated for the Pledge and that it does not reflect a lack of patriotism. The fact is, refusing to stand and repeat it is more patriotic and respectful of our secular constitution than rising and declaring us to be ‘one nation under god.’ That 'god' part was only inserted in 1954 when Congress wanted to demonstrate the nation's piety as compared to Communism's godlessness.

The pledge seemed fine up until 1954

The mayor and those city council members should spend a lot more time studying the Constitution and its meaning. Nowhere is there anything that states 'not standing' is considered disrespectful to military personnel. The flag does not equal the military, nor is it written they, or any American, needs to be respected just because they are posted on foreign soil.

The Mayor’s judgment really needs to be scrutinized when he insists American citizens should stand when he makes an appeal to the Christian god.

Some Americans think this should be our flag.

Anyone who doesn’t see a threat in religion had better take notice of these events. When Christianity and politics were previously blended together it was called the Dark Ages and Europe eventually suffered over 600 years of the Inquisition. In nations where politics and religion are one in the same today, you have places like Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. 
     People insisting that Christianity is harmless are deluding themselves. It is not harmless once someone in power decides to do exactly what the bible says, as the Crusades, the witch trials, the killing of heretics, the slavery issue, and even opposition to gay marriage shows. If the new Christian-politicos gain control of the government, the old Inquisition will pale in comparison to what they will do with that power. These 'religion trumps secularism' events are happening more and more frequently. Those who believe a wall should permanently separate church and state need to stand their ground. Our future depends on it.
       Don’t misunderstand; anyone has a right to their beliefs, but they don’t have a right to force it on anyone else or to have them respect it. We might acknowledge it, but we also then have the right to say “Are you kidding me? Your belief is stupid.”