Pro-family leaders: Expect ‘persecution from the government’ over gay ‘marriage’
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 27, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Religious conservatives and traditional morality advocates say the Supreme Court's twin rulings on homosexuality and marriage will undermine religious freedom for a generation, unleashing a new and lasting challenge to the First Amendment.
“Those who hold a Biblical view of marriage can expect much persecution from the government in the years to come,” said Penny Nance, CEO and president of Concerned Women for America (CWA). “The 38 states that have affirmed the traditional definition of marriage can expect to be dragged into future courts. The Justices have thrust us into another life-long battle for religious freedom and a bitter dispute for truth, just as they did with Roe.”
“Same-sex marriage in America has been a divisive and controversial issue for some time—and will continue to be,” agreed Southern Evangelical Seminary President Richard Land. “Today is a devastating day for traditional marriage and religious freedom.”
According to pro-family activists, the rulings wade into the morality of sexual unions and the parameters of permissible discourse, marginalizing those who believe in the preservation of the nuclear family.
Fr. Hans Jacobse, the founder of the American Orthodox Institute, said, “This ruling is not good for this reason: in decreeing that social unions that are not found in nature are morally licit, the Court has arrogated unto itself the authority to be both the source and judge of human morality. From this point forward there is no way to circumvent its power, and we will rue this day when we realize what a great mistake we have made.”
At least one of the Supreme Court justices, Antonin Scalia, was shocked by the majority ruling in DOMA, which seemed to indicate that the only reason Christians oppose same-sex “marriage” is hatred of gays and lesbians.
“Scalia has chillingly illuminated the future for marriage traditionalists: the only reason to oppose same-sex marriage is hate. In constitutional law, there is no rational basis for supporting traditional marriage,” wrote Rod Dreher of The American Conservative.
Dreher added that the allegation that Congress – and President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA – were motivated by animus against homosexuals “ought to put fear into the hearts of anyone who does not share the belief that homosexuality is morally neutral, or morally good.”
Click "like" if you support true marriage.
“You know the liberal mind: thoughtcrime cannot be allowed to exist,” he said. “How can the federal government maintain a tax exemption for churches that hew to the Biblical teaching on homosexuality, given that the Supreme Court now has put opposition to homosexuality in the same category as racism?”
Al Kresta, the host of EWTN's “Kresta in the Afternoon,” illustrated how the First Amendment right to practice religion in all realms of life may be infringed in the coming years.
“You’ve no doubt read of cases in which landlords and hoteliers are not permitted to deny use of their property to married couples of the same sex,” he said. “It’s reasonable to assume that public education will be affected, and schools’ sex ed curricula will regard same-sex relationships and marriage as simply another option among several options. This viewpoint will be widely promulgated, even when it is in sharp disagreement with the viewpoint of the parents.”
Family advocates promised to redouble their efforts to bolster marriage within their own circles, whether they are supported or opposed by the black-robed gentry.
“What will not change as a result of today’s Supreme Court decisions is this: The Catholic Church will continue to regard homosexuality as disordered, and to oppose any effort to legalize same-sex marriage,” Kresta said.
On behalf of the nation's largest Protestant denomination, Richard Land said, “Defining marriage for the American people is way above the Supreme Court’s pay grade.”
“God created marriage, and He has defined its parameters, regardless of what the majority of Supreme Court justices might think.”