by John Nolte3 Jul 2015
In a sign of the overt fascism and religious persecution to come in the wake of a Left emboldened by the Supreme Court’s recent gay marriage ruling, a judge in Oregon has issued a gag order denying two Christian bakery owners from speaking out against same sex marriage.
The gag order is meant to stop Aaron and Melissa Klein from publicly speaking out about their desire to not bake cakes for same sex weddings. The State’s order came after the Kleins were interviewed by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, and after the State fined the Kleins $135,000 for “emotional damages” incurred by a lesbian couple after the Kleins refused to bake their wedding cake.
That this kind of fascist oppression was always the endgame in the Left’s push for same sex marriage, was apparent to anyone familiar with the Left’s tactics.
The push for same sex marriage was always nothing more the Left’s sheep’s clothing in a crusade to destroy Christians and the Christian Church.
By adhering to the word of God, the Left will label Christians bigots and haters, and use the power of boycotts and the State to punish and silence us.
Now that gay marriage is the law of the land, the gay-pride flag will become the fascist banner under which any Church that doesn’t perform same sex marriages will be dismantled piece-by-piece. The tools used by the Gaystapo will include coordinated hate campaigns in the media, as well as political campaigns aimed at removing the Church’s tax exempt status.
Christians and conservatives who never believed this could happen are part of the problem.
1995: We don’t want marriage, just civil unions.
2005: Our marriage won’t affect your rights.
2014: Bake me a cake, or else.
2015: Your opinion against same sex marriage is illegal.
Read More Stories About:
Changing, not Expanding Marriage
By Eric Metaxas
Was marriage “equality” the real goal of the gay marriage movement? Or was it something else?
The problem is that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are not nearly as alike as those making these arguments would have us believe.
This reality was amply demonstrated in a recent broadcast of “Weekend All Things Considered.” Host Arun Rath spoke to J. Bryan Lowder of Slate, who worried about the impact of the Court’s decision on gay culture.
By “gay culture,” Lowder wasn’t talking about a particular fashion sense and a fondness for Judy Garland. What he had in mind was the ability to “imagine different ways of being in romantic relationships and loving.” For some gays and lesbians, this “meant monogamous relationships that looked exactly like a married couple . . . [without] the legal imprimatur of the state. But for other people, they had many different kinds of arrangements.” Emphasis on many.
Lowder is hardly an outlier. Last year, in a Daily Beast article provocatively entitled “Were Christians Right About Gay Marriage All Along?” gay activist Jay Michaelson acknowledged that there “is some truth to the conservative claim that gay marriage is changing, not just expanding, marriage.”
Michaelson cited a 2013 study finding that “about half of gay marriages surveyed . . . [are] not strictly monogamous.” He called this fact “well-known in the gay community,” adding that “we assume it’s more like three-quarters” that are not monogamous. They are, to cite a now-popular phrase, “monagam-ish.”
Michaelson admitted that his straight friends who believed that they “were fighting for marriage equality, not marriage redefinition,” felt “duped.”
This brings to mind an exchange between Andrew Sullivan and conservative columnist Mona Charen more than 20 years ago. In response to Sullivan’s claim that marriage would domesticate gay men’s sex drives, Charen replied that marriage doesn’t domesticate men, women do.
This, my friends, is sexual complementarity in a pithy nutshell. The sexes are different, and each promises the other something different that will contribute to their union and the wellbeing of their offspring.
Frankly, Christians who support same-sex marriage have been had. The question is: Now that they know what’s really going on, will they change their minds?
From www.BreakPoint.org 9th July 2015
Speak boldly. All it takes for evil to reign is for good men and women to do and say nothing. So do not let the intimidators silence you. Speak the truth in love and leave the results to God.
As Os Guinness reminds us, in the end, Christian persuasion is “not for salesmen, propagandists . . . spin doctors . . . and the like.” The art of Christian persuasion “is for those who desire to share the way of Jesus because of their love for Jesus, and who know that love is also a key part of any human being’s search for knowledge and truth.”
“And true to the Holy Spirit, Christian persuasion must always know and show that the decisive power is not ours but God’s.”
So we do not fear the intimidation, we can boldly and persistently speak the truth, with gentleness, peacefully, defending the children, being salt and light in our world.
Contrast this patient, loving, good-fruit producing method, which brings peace, safety for children, good health, stable government, prosperous and peaceful nations, with the seemingly incredibly successful, tactically phenomenal, strategic campaign conducted over the past few years by the militant homosexuals.
They have used every trick of salesmanship, propaganda, PR, political spin doctoring, persuasion, accessing government funding, using the full might of the media, Hollywood, the entertainment industry, political lobbying, and then when that has not worked they have then conducted one of the most successful mass intimidation campaigns ever seen.
Anyone left standing who still opposes their worldview is then blacklisted, bullied, labelled a bigot, bombarded with hate messages, targeted in cyberspace, at their work places, at schools and in their homes and communities.
Then when that doesn’t work, they are increasingly aiming to use the full force of the State to silence their opponents, using anti-discrimination laws and other powers of the State to spread further fear. Of course these things are not new, tyrants throughout history have always operated this way, however what we are seeing now is, I believe, one of the most potent campaigns by a minority group to influence a society for ill that we have possible ever seen.
Contrast the way of peace with the hatred and vilification hurled upon anyone who dare oppose the juggernaut of the same-sex movement. Prominent homosexuals Dolce & Gabbana spoke up recently saying they don’t support 'marriage' for homosexuals, same-sex adoption and the artificial creation of children.
The response from the leadership of the juggernaut was ugly and revealing. Led by Elton John there were demands to blacklist Dolce & Gabbana and to boycott buying their products. No tolerance or acceptance of free speech, just vengeance, punishment and silencing.
The comments were made in a celebrity interview on Panorama, an Italian TV show – where Domenico Dolce proclaimed, “You are born to a mother and a father — or at least that’s how it should be. I call children of chemistry, synthetic children.”
Miranda Devine rightly commented, “It takes gay people to come out and say what straight people are too intimidated to say.”
Keep speaking the truth in love. Do not be afraid.
“Fool’s Talk: Recovering the Art of Christian Persuasion.” Os Guinness.
The same-sex marriage debate and the right to religious belief.
by: Paul Kelly
From: The Australian
July 11, 2015 12:00AM
The central issue in any Australian recognition of same-sex marriage remains almost invisible — whether the state’s re-definition of civil marriage will authorise an assault on churches, institutions and individuals who retain their belief in the traditional view of marriage.
It seems to this point that none of the proposals for same-sex marriage or related policy prescriptions are satisfactory laws for passage by the Australian parliament. The real issue is conceptually simple — it is whether same-sex marriage will deny conscience rights to much of the population. The alternative is a new spirit of tolerance guaranteed by law where same-sex marriage sits in parallel with undiminished religious liberty.
The omens are not good. As the years advance there has been virtually no debate about the real issues surrounding same-sex marriage. The campaign for change is strong and tactically brilliant based on the ideological slogan “marriage equality”, one of the most effective slogans in many decades.
The collapse of the moral authority of the churches, especially the Catholic Church, driven above all by the child sexual abuse phenomenon across a range of nations, has seen a depleted and often unchristian response by the churches as they singularly fail to meet the demand of same-sex marriage advocates.
Yet the majority media reaction to this situation — “let’s get on with the change” — is ignorant and irresponsible. The real debate is probably just starting. It poses an unprecedented challenge for our law-makers. There has never been an issue like this, as the US Supreme Court decision made clear.
… We cannot allow a situation where the law is telling people they have to act against their conscience and beliefs. We cannot protect the rights of one group of people by denying the rights of another group.”
If the Australian parliament intends to create a legal regime with this consequence then the law-makers must justify this to the people and explain how such calculated intolerance leads to a better society. The legalisation of same-sex marriage means the laws of the state and the laws of the church will be in conflict over the meaning of the most important institution in society. This conflict between the civil and religious meaning of marriage will probably be untenable and marked by litigation, attempts to use anti-discrimination law and entrenched bitterness. But an effort ought to be made to make it tenable on the basis of mutual tolerance.
…There should be no doubt, however, about the bottom line: the Australian parliament should not legislate the right to same-sex marriage on the altar of denying institutions and individuals the right to their conscience.
… the legalisation of same-sex marriage cannot be used to deploy state power against religious organisation and believers.
This raises the question about the real ideology of the same-sex marriage campaign. Is it merely to allow gays to marry? Or is its ultimate purpose to impose “marriage equality” across the entire society, civil and religious. Ideologies do not normally stop at the halfway mark
…Will religious institutions be penalised by losing government contracts, tax exemptions and access to public facilities? Will religious institutions and schools be penalised if they teach their own beliefs about marriage, thereby contradicting the state’s view of marriage? Or will the state laws via anti-discrimination legislation be mobilised to force the state’s view on to religious institutions?
…The US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v Hodges is flawed for two reasons. First, as Chief Justice John Roberts said in dissent: “The court is not a legislator. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.”
…The applause in this country for the US Supreme Court decision, while understandable, is a disappointing and bad omen. It suggests the public grasp of this issue in Australia is far distant from the debate that is needed.
“I have accepted the inevitability that civil marriage in Australia will be redefined to include same-sex couples,” Brennan told Inquirer. But Brennan warned it was “another thing” to require “all persons, regardless of their religious beliefs, to treat same-sex couples even in the life and activities of the church as if they were married in the eyes of the church”.
He poses a series of questions. Will religious institutions in Australia be able to follow current policy on shared accommodation on a church site? Will religious schools be able to limit employment to teachers who follow church teaching on sexual relations? Will faith- based adoptive agencies be able to prefer placement with a traditional family unit?
...Brennan’s fears are well placed given the debate in Australia in recent times. The politicians are not serious about this issue and neither is the media. It is reduced to a footnote of minor import yet rolled out to justify their same-sex marriage policy.
…The core question remains: what is the real ideological objective of the same-sex marriage campaign?
The full article is at the following link: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/the-same-sex-marriage-debate-and-the-right-to-religious-belief/story-e6frg74x-1227437429587
The Nazis in Germany and the fascists in Italy in the 1930's, bullied their societies into silent submission. People were too afraid to speak out against them because they were bullied, black-listed, discriminated against, persecuted, arrested, fined, shot. The silent submission didn't lead to things getting better for the silent majority. Giving in to them wasn't the end of it, it was just the beginning! Years of pain and suffering followed as the oppressors took over and did their thing.
Allowing ourselves to be bullied and silenced into giving up two of the foundations of our free society, traditional family and traditional marriage, will not be the end of it. It is the family and marriage now, but what will be next?
The Bible states pretty clearly that homosexual acts are, to put it mildly, not good for people, so the proponents of so called same sex "marriage" must logically come after the Bible next and Christians, and Jews, and...
So we could see the State regulating religion and banning books. We will see other groups demanding Australia accommodate their own ideological "laws" so as not to "discriminate" against them, etc., etc.
The rapid speed with which homosexual “marriage” has bullied its way into Western societies and found limited resistance (the masses are too frightened to speak up) is just the beginning. If we can offer no answers against this we can offer no answers against anything.
“In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.” Martin Niemoller.
We all need to speak up for the protection of traditional family and marriage, because the threat is quite imminent. It is not about speaking up against homosexuals, but about standing up for and protecting something which governments, judges, minority groups, media, Hollywood etc. have no right, power or authority to undermine.
Please Speak Up Australia. Defend children and freedom. Say NO to the proposition to change marriage laws.
In accordance with s 6(5) of the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Act 2017, Authorised by Craig Manners of Ngumbe, Malawi.
The Freedom Files