A team of prominent Christian leaders is preparing a statement that will inform the public – including justices on the U.S. Supreme Court – that they will engage in civil disobedience rather than follow a ruling that establishes homosexual “marriage” in the United States.
Among those leading the charge is James Dobson of Family Talk Radio, Rick Scarborough of Vision America Action, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel and James Robison of Life Today, whose brand new publication called The Stream reported on a recent telephone conference call discussing the issue.
Stream Executive Editor Jay Richards told WND there were about 20 other Christian leaders on the call. He said members of Congress have expressed an interest in the plan, which will be disclosed in the next few days in a statement regarding marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court.
However, Scarborough wasted no time in an interview with WND explaining what is, and is not, going to happen.
“We’re taking a very adamant stand,” he said. “If the court declares same-sex ‘marriage’ to be on the same par as a civil right, that’s a bridge too far. We won’t obey. We’ll go to jail.”
Dobson, who publicly warned Obama he would not submit to mandatory payments for abortion, saying “come and get me if you must” – said Christians must stand together against the clearly unbiblical “gay marriage.”
“We will be attacked from every direction,” Dobson said in the report in the The Stream, “and critics will do all they can to weaken and embarrass us, but so what?”
“Are we doing to sit on our reputations and go to our graves without having played a role? This is Roe v. Wade all over again. I am standing shoulder to shoulder with all who will stand up for God’s Word concerning marriage. We don’t know all of the steps that must be taken, but God will reveal His will. To the extent that I am able to influence anybody, I will do it with passion.”
Staver, whose legal organization has played a key role in the state Supreme Court decision in Alabama affirming traditional marriage and preventing state judges from following a federal court ruling to impose “gay marriage,” warned Christians of what he sees coming.
“Immediately, when elevated to that level of a constitutionally protected category, [same-sex marriage] is given the same status as race. What you cannot legally do with respect to race, you will not be able to do legally with respect to same-sex unions and sexual immorality,” he said.
“Think of race in the context of religious expression or conscience expression and replace it with sexual immorality, transsexualism or so-called gender identity. For example, churches and other religious organizations are exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of federal, state or local nondiscrimination laws. But they are not exempted from the race provisions. So Catholics can hire Catholics, and Baptists can hire Baptists, but they cannot hire only ‘white’ Catholics or only ‘white’ Baptists. They would face significant penalties. You can’t have separate restrooms or drinking fountains for people of a different color. If a church did that they would be liable for a significant amount of damages because of discrimination on the basis of race.
“Same-sex marriage or laws including sexual orientation or gender identity as a non-discrimination category directly impact religious organizations and churches. If a man wants to use the women’s restroom and a church official told him he could not, then that act would be like telling people of color they cannot use the ‘white only’ restroom. You will also have the same issues with tax exemption over sexual preference as you have now over race,” he said.
Scarborough confirmed congressmen “are lining up to sign the document.”
“The undeniable case is that when same-sex “marriage’ becomes, declared by the Supreme Court, as the law of the land, they will begin to enforce it, like all civil rights laws.”
That is where the civil disobedience will loom large.
“We’re saying, before that, we will never obey that tyrannical law. It’s counter to natural law, and God’s higher law.
“We will simply refuse to comply with recognizing same-sex ‘marriage’ as legitimate,” he said. “The Supreme Court does not have the inherent right [to make that change]. We’ll going to continue doing what we’ve always done.”
He said the hope is that thousands of churches and millions of Americans will join.
Those who plan to use the power of federal law enforcement to enforce same-sex marriage, he said, “better have a lot of prisons and jails.”
Richards told WND the Christian leaders are recognizing that one doesn’t just disobey any law.
“There are certain conditions, such as when a court makes a decision that’s inherently unjust,” he said.
Robison said in The Stream that 30 “deeply concerned church leaders” met on “marriage and [the] family damaging decision the Supreme Court may soon make.”
“If they follow present cultural trends and rulings of numerous lower courts, by June they will rule against the biblical and historical institution of marriage in favor of what is being called ‘same-sex marriage,’” he said.
Same-sex marriage first was recognized in Massachusetts a decade ago. A few other states followed. It was when Barack Obama took office and he and Attorney General Eric Holder said they would refuse to follow the federal Defense of Marriage Act that the pace of state constitutional definitions of marriage being between a man and a woman falling picked up.
Eventually, the Supreme Court struck the federal DOMA.
But it is inside that decision that the seeds of collapse for same-sex marriage may have been implanted.
The Alabama Supreme Court, in its decision rejecting a federal court mandate for its state, cited the decision.
The court noted: “An open question exists as to whether Windsor’s ‘equal dignity’ notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that ‘the history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.”
The Alabama court wrote: “In Windsor, New York’s law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses. Thus, the ‘dignity’ was conferred by the state’s own choice, a choice that was ‘without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.’”
But it then raised a question: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?
“The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York’s ‘sovereign’ choice,” the Alabama court said. “Alabama ‘used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations’ and made a different ‘sovereign’ choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that ‘the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’”
Staver noted in The Stream that the decision may very well be the fulcrum on which people start judging the Supreme Court, where two justices, Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg, already have openly advocated for same-sex marriage by performing such ceremonies. Despite their personal involvement in the issue, they have yet to recuse themselves from the case that justices will hear in just a few weeks.
“We need to let them know now where we stand. Tell them now that if they cross that line they will become an illegitimate institution, that the Supreme Court will lose the respect of the American people and therefore lose its authority,” Staver said.
WND previously reported Family Research Council senior fellow Peter Sprigg suggested the Supreme Court may tread lightly when it considers whether states have the right to define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman.
“I would hope that that lesson [the Alabama decision] would be one more thing that would chasten the Supreme Court a bit and make them reluctant to overturn not just the laws but the constitutions of a majority of U.S. states on the issue of marriage,” said Sprigg, a defender of traditional marriage.
He said Alabama may be just the tip of the iceberg.
“I think what is happening in Alabama shows that the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, should not necessarily operate on the expectation that everyone on the state level will simply roll over and play dead because a federal court expresses its opinion on this issue,” Sprigg said.
“There are limits to how much the courts can impose their will simply by virtue of their prestige and so forth when they’re clearly going beyond anything found in the text of the Constitution,” he said.
Dobson’s earlier challenge to Obama came because of Obamacare’s demand that employers fund abortion services in violation of their beliefs.
WND also reported when Dobson spoke to the National Day of Prayer that hundreds stood and cheered his condemnation of the government’s ongoing attempts through Obamacare to require Christians to participate in something that profoundly violates their faith – abortion.
“[Obama] has made it so that every American will have to pay toward the support of abortion,” he said, citing hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds that already go to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion industry player.
Dobson recited his pledge, made when the fight over abortion funding was launched by Obama.
“To pay one cent for the killing of babies is egregious to me, and I will do all I can to correct a government that lies to me about its intentions and then tries to coerce my acquiescence with extortion. It would be a violation of my most deeply held convictions to disobey what I consider to be the principles in Scripture. The Creator will not hold us guiltless if we turn a deaf ear to the cries of His innocent babies. So come and get me if you must, Mr. President. I will not bow before your wicked regulation. ”
Source: WND
Stream Executive Editor Jay Richards told WND there were about 20 other Christian leaders on the call. He said members of Congress have expressed an interest in the plan, which will be disclosed in the next few days in a statement regarding marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court.
However, Scarborough wasted no time in an interview with WND explaining what is, and is not, going to happen.
“We’re taking a very adamant stand,” he said. “If the court declares same-sex ‘marriage’ to be on the same par as a civil right, that’s a bridge too far. We won’t obey. We’ll go to jail.”
Dobson, who publicly warned Obama he would not submit to mandatory payments for abortion, saying “come and get me if you must” – said Christians must stand together against the clearly unbiblical “gay marriage.”
“We will be attacked from every direction,” Dobson said in the report in the The Stream, “and critics will do all they can to weaken and embarrass us, but so what?”
“Are we doing to sit on our reputations and go to our graves without having played a role? This is Roe v. Wade all over again. I am standing shoulder to shoulder with all who will stand up for God’s Word concerning marriage. We don’t know all of the steps that must be taken, but God will reveal His will. To the extent that I am able to influence anybody, I will do it with passion.”
Staver, whose legal organization has played a key role in the state Supreme Court decision in Alabama affirming traditional marriage and preventing state judges from following a federal court ruling to impose “gay marriage,” warned Christians of what he sees coming.
“Immediately, when elevated to that level of a constitutionally protected category, [same-sex marriage] is given the same status as race. What you cannot legally do with respect to race, you will not be able to do legally with respect to same-sex unions and sexual immorality,” he said.
“Think of race in the context of religious expression or conscience expression and replace it with sexual immorality, transsexualism or so-called gender identity. For example, churches and other religious organizations are exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of federal, state or local nondiscrimination laws. But they are not exempted from the race provisions. So Catholics can hire Catholics, and Baptists can hire Baptists, but they cannot hire only ‘white’ Catholics or only ‘white’ Baptists. They would face significant penalties. You can’t have separate restrooms or drinking fountains for people of a different color. If a church did that they would be liable for a significant amount of damages because of discrimination on the basis of race.
“Same-sex marriage or laws including sexual orientation or gender identity as a non-discrimination category directly impact religious organizations and churches. If a man wants to use the women’s restroom and a church official told him he could not, then that act would be like telling people of color they cannot use the ‘white only’ restroom. You will also have the same issues with tax exemption over sexual preference as you have now over race,” he said.
Scarborough confirmed congressmen “are lining up to sign the document.”
“The undeniable case is that when same-sex “marriage’ becomes, declared by the Supreme Court, as the law of the land, they will begin to enforce it, like all civil rights laws.”
That is where the civil disobedience will loom large.
“We’re saying, before that, we will never obey that tyrannical law. It’s counter to natural law, and God’s higher law.
“We will simply refuse to comply with recognizing same-sex ‘marriage’ as legitimate,” he said. “The Supreme Court does not have the inherent right [to make that change]. We’ll going to continue doing what we’ve always done.”
He said the hope is that thousands of churches and millions of Americans will join.
Those who plan to use the power of federal law enforcement to enforce same-sex marriage, he said, “better have a lot of prisons and jails.”
Richards told WND the Christian leaders are recognizing that one doesn’t just disobey any law.
“There are certain conditions, such as when a court makes a decision that’s inherently unjust,” he said.
Robison said in The Stream that 30 “deeply concerned church leaders” met on “marriage and [the] family damaging decision the Supreme Court may soon make.”
“If they follow present cultural trends and rulings of numerous lower courts, by June they will rule against the biblical and historical institution of marriage in favor of what is being called ‘same-sex marriage,’” he said.
Same-sex marriage first was recognized in Massachusetts a decade ago. A few other states followed. It was when Barack Obama took office and he and Attorney General Eric Holder said they would refuse to follow the federal Defense of Marriage Act that the pace of state constitutional definitions of marriage being between a man and a woman falling picked up.
Eventually, the Supreme Court struck the federal DOMA.
But it is inside that decision that the seeds of collapse for same-sex marriage may have been implanted.
The Alabama Supreme Court, in its decision rejecting a federal court mandate for its state, cited the decision.
The court noted: “An open question exists as to whether Windsor’s ‘equal dignity’ notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that ‘the history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.”
The Alabama court wrote: “In Windsor, New York’s law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses. Thus, the ‘dignity’ was conferred by the state’s own choice, a choice that was ‘without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.’”
But it then raised a question: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?
“The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York’s ‘sovereign’ choice,” the Alabama court said. “Alabama ‘used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations’ and made a different ‘sovereign’ choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that ‘the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’”
Staver noted in The Stream that the decision may very well be the fulcrum on which people start judging the Supreme Court, where two justices, Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg, already have openly advocated for same-sex marriage by performing such ceremonies. Despite their personal involvement in the issue, they have yet to recuse themselves from the case that justices will hear in just a few weeks.
“We need to let them know now where we stand. Tell them now that if they cross that line they will become an illegitimate institution, that the Supreme Court will lose the respect of the American people and therefore lose its authority,” Staver said.
WND previously reported Family Research Council senior fellow Peter Sprigg suggested the Supreme Court may tread lightly when it considers whether states have the right to define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman.
“I would hope that that lesson [the Alabama decision] would be one more thing that would chasten the Supreme Court a bit and make them reluctant to overturn not just the laws but the constitutions of a majority of U.S. states on the issue of marriage,” said Sprigg, a defender of traditional marriage.
He said Alabama may be just the tip of the iceberg.
“I think what is happening in Alabama shows that the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, should not necessarily operate on the expectation that everyone on the state level will simply roll over and play dead because a federal court expresses its opinion on this issue,” Sprigg said.
“There are limits to how much the courts can impose their will simply by virtue of their prestige and so forth when they’re clearly going beyond anything found in the text of the Constitution,” he said.
Dobson’s earlier challenge to Obama came because of Obamacare’s demand that employers fund abortion services in violation of their beliefs.
WND also reported when Dobson spoke to the National Day of Prayer that hundreds stood and cheered his condemnation of the government’s ongoing attempts through Obamacare to require Christians to participate in something that profoundly violates their faith – abortion.
“[Obama] has made it so that every American will have to pay toward the support of abortion,” he said, citing hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds that already go to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion industry player.
Dobson recited his pledge, made when the fight over abortion funding was launched by Obama.
“To pay one cent for the killing of babies is egregious to me, and I will do all I can to correct a government that lies to me about its intentions and then tries to coerce my acquiescence with extortion. It would be a violation of my most deeply held convictions to disobey what I consider to be the principles in Scripture. The Creator will not hold us guiltless if we turn a deaf ear to the cries of His innocent babies. So come and get me if you must, Mr. President. I will not bow before your wicked regulation. ”
Source: WND
No comments:
Post a Comment