Same-sex marriage has become the rationalization for tossing Constitutional freedoms.
“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” – Charles de Montesquieu
I read the news every day, and think: how is this possible? How have we sunk so deeply into the abyss, and still maintained order? More than that, it boggles my mind that so few people truly understand the gravity of our collective death march. Our federal government has been tightening the noose around our neck, and they are about to pull the lever, and we’re all smiling stupidly because we have no idea what’s about to happen, despite the obvious consequences.
According to Fox, two ordained ministers who run a wedding chapel in Idaho are about to be prosecuted for refusing to administer a wedding for a same-sex couple.
“According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a ‘religious corporation’ limited to performing ‘one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible’…But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.”
This has come up before: a purveyor of services has refused to participate in a same-sex wedding, and because of its status as a public accommodation, it has been forced to put up or close down. Despite my belief that those businesses (a flower shop, and a bakery) should not have been forced to participate in something they believed to be morally reprehensible, this case is much more menacing. This case represents a direct assault. Where the prior cases were skirmishes, this is a war.
The government is using the law to restrict the religious freedom of its own citizens, and once isn’t enough; it will happen again, and again, with each occurrence cutting deeper until we are completely severed from our constitutional rights.
Proponents of same-sex marriage have always maintained that conservatives were out of their minds for fearing a future in which the government forced ministers to perform weddings to which they were morally opposed. They said it was nonsense to believe that the government would, in granting new rights to some, violate the religious freedom of others. Well, now we stand right on the edge of that precipice, so what’s next? What’s next is telling ministers that they must violate not only their religious convictions, but also their consciences, in order to accommodate something new.
This is a direct assault on faith—not just on people of faith, but on faith itself. And that is what sets this case apart from the rest. The government has moved from indirect targets to putting our religious freedom right in the crosshairs. What’s worse, the law is being used to accomplish this assault, so when all is said and done, the outcome—no matter how heinous—will be “sound,” and “legal.”
So, once again I ask, what’s next? If the government can use the law to severely diminish one right, why not another? Why not restrict what is said in churches? In Houston, Texas, subpoenas were recently issued to ministers because the mayor wanted to know the content of their sermons, and if those sermons dealt with issues of homosexuality, and gender identity. Why not restrict what is said in public spaces? Why not restrict what is said at home?
What’s next? How deeply must we be cut in order to feel it?