LaBarbera: Gay activists will soon seek what none of them have even hinted at wanting
Deliberate attempt to confuse evangelicals in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Vermont's new law allowing homosexuals to "marry" contains strong religious exemptions. It states that members of the clergy are not required to "solemnize any marriage" and that the refusal to do so "shall not create any civil claim or cause of action."
Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, expects those exemptions to eventually be challenged by homosexual activists.
"I think these provisions will end up being litigated because the homosexual activists have already shown that they regard religious-motivated so-called 'bigotry' against homosexuality...as discrimination," he explains. "So I see in the long run the homosexual activists will be taking these provisions to court."
LaBarbera cites an example. "The case in New Mexico of the Christian photographer who...didn't want to shoot a lesbian wedding, and now she faces a fine -- and she's still in court," he notes. "So we've seen that the...agenda [of the homosexual lobby] tramples religious freedom."
Homosexual agenda 'tramples' religious freedom [ONN]
Peter's predictions are an utter crock of cock-a-poopy! If any gay person went to court with a goal of forcing religious institutions to solemnize their CIVIL marriage, they would be laughed out of the court room. No LGBT legal group would take up such a case, because none of our groups -- NONE OF OUR GROUPS -- are seeking the ability to force faiths to perform ceremonial, ritualistic marriages! These matters are to be handled among the various denominations and sects, and we are MORE THAN FINE with that being the case. If a gay church member wants to push their faith bodies to adopt a marriage equality mindset, then they absolutely can -- but not in the court of CIVIL law.
The Vermont religious protections were not even needed, as anyone who understands the law understands the difference between the civil marriage and the chosen religious ceremony. The extra language was only put into to appease folks like Peter. And what thanks do they get for that accommodation? They get Peter, in the most deceptive of fear-mongery fashions, further muddying the waters of this debate by ignoring the facts on the face and instead embracing predictions that he pulled from his arse.
*Oh, and as for the "example"? Just because this photographer identifies as a Christian and the photos in question were for a lesbian commitment, it doesn't make this situation apropos to the civil vs. religious marriage discussion! The NM photographer case involves whether or not this business, a public accommodation, can use their personal faith views to discriminate against citizens. It could not have less to do with whether or not churches should be forced to marry gay couples!!
STOP. THE. ANTI-INTELLECTUAL. NONSENSE!
I love this quote:
"Ah, yes. Ever since I was a wee lad, I always imagined my special wedding day being held in a church that thinks I’m a horrible, horrible sinner—priest nervously presiding over us at gunpoint… government agents standing cross-armed by the newly kicked-in cathedral door. But that’s not terrifically likely."
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | Apr 17, 2009 1:50:01 PM
It's getting pretty convoluted. Sic the COLBERT Nation on it!
Posted by: LOrion | Apr 17, 2009 3:16:38 PM
As a small business owner I reserve the right to discontinue a business relationship with any person of my choosing. It's right in the contract that the client and I sign.
My attorney gets a chuckle out of it but he says that other than my contract being somewhat one sided in my favor, it covers all the basis points of a proper contract and addresses conflict resolution and removes it from the realm of the civil courts.
So for example, I refuse to work with Republicans.
Posted by: Tony P | Apr 17, 2009 3:19:43 PM
I wonder if perhaps the Peter is projecting. As for me, I was raised Catholic. So technically, I don't actually need a priest.
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Apr 17, 2009 3:32:17 PM
P LaBarbera is showing his paranoia, for the zillionth time. Of course LGBT people are not remotely interested in forcing a church to do any such thing. How ludicrous!
In fact, we should delight in a firm separation, a Chinese Wall, between church and state. The secular should never interfere with what happens inside the buildings of a church. And religion should never poison... er, I mean mix with, politics. Wherever that happens, there is poverty, violence, oppression, death, disease, ignorance.
Why would anyone want a blessing from an institution that expects us to go to hell? Of course LaBarbera is speaking as someone who cannot even imagine that others would want NOTHING to do with religion. Some of us are delighted that no celestial dictator exists, watching over our every move. And it is pleasing to thin too, that the contents of the Bible are total fiction.
Other LGBT people who do believe, will find solace in the gay-affirming churches (the Unitarians for instance), whose religious rights to bless gay marriages have been trampled on by this unconstitutional DOMA and the same sex marriage ban, which has made a mockery of Jefferson's Virginia Statute.
PS hope you don't think I'm fussy but 'NONE of our groups...IS seeking the ability' ('not one' - is singular. Everyone gets that wrong.)
Posted by: A.T | Apr 17, 2009 7:40:41 PM
A.T, not to be nit-picky, but in your sentence, you really should more properly use "are". Usually you should use "is" when the object is not enumerable. Like, "None of my beer is drinkable, as it has gone flat and is warm." But if the object is countable, you use "are". Like, "None of the morons in the Anti-Gay Camp are any brighter than any of the others are!"
Posted by: Dick Mills | Apr 18, 2009 8:39:25 PMcomments powered by Disqus