Gallups: Gay Marriage = Enslavement

Right wing radio host Carl Gallups and Phyllis Schlafly did an interview with the Worldnetdaily that is just chock full of ridiculous paranoia and demagoguery. If gay people are allowed to get married, he says, churches will be forced to perform them and that equals “enslavement.”

Carl Gallups, a radio host, pastor, and author of “Final Warning: Understanding the Trumpet Days of Revelation,” is one of those people. He says American pastors may face a real test of faith.

“If the Supreme Court declares homosexual marriage to be the law of the land, pastors will have a lot of important decisions to make. If the government were to focus in on the churches and say you have to perform gay weddings or give up tax-exempt status, what will these preachers do? Will they stand on the word of God, and with the historical foundation of civilized societies, or will they cave in – in the name of financial and political expediency?”…

Gallups warns what is at stake is the creation of nothing less than a new legal and religious order built upon the destruction of the First Amendment.

He maintains, “If the government can force a church to perform homosexual weddings, then in effect the First Amendment to the Constitution has been completely destroyed. At that point, the government is creating a new religion, a new state church, because they are saying what Christianity is and is not…

Gallups looks to history for examples of how Americans can resist the kind of possible “enslavement” he sees coming for Christians.

He asks believers: “When the First Amendment is gone – trampled in the dirt under our nose, and we are forced to submit to godlessness at gunpoint or economic destruction, will we roll over and put ourselves under the tyranny of those who would desire to enslave us and dominate us? Or will we take measures like our Founding Fathers took?”

What ridiculous right-wing screed would be complete without invoking the Founding Fathers? But don’t worry. Schlafly says the American people are going to rise up and put a stop to this:

Phyllis Schlafly does not believe it will come to anything like that because “the American people won’t put up with it.”

It’s so adorable how the wingnuts convince themselves that the American people are on their side. It’s a claim that is utterly immune to evidence, like virtually everything else they believe. The American people support marriage equality by a pretty significant margin and that is only going to increase as people come to realize that the inane and hyperbolic predictions of demagogues like Gallups and Schlafly aren’t coming true.

Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • dmcclean

    It’s so adorable how the wingnuts convince themselves that the American people are on their side. It’s a claim that is utterly immune to evidence, …

    Indeed, for them it’s true by (their, continuously moving) definition of “American people”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    Well, I guess if the government did force churches to perform gay weddings, it might actually be the end of several rights enumerated in the Constitution. The problem with his diatribe, of course, is that pesky “If” word. If, for example, another of those dinosaur-killer asteroids slammed into Pocatello, ID, that too would mark the end of those rights. If Guinea Bissau developed thermonuclear weapons, sneaked them into every major city in the U.S…

    I could do this all day.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    The People are on their side. We don’t think the government should force their churches to perform gay marriages, either.

  • abb3w

    The usual exercise…

    Charles Coughlin, a radio host, pastor, and author of “Why Leave Our Own? 13 Addresses on Christianity and Americanism ,” is one of those people. He says American pastors may face a real test of faith.

    “If the Supreme Court declares interracial marriage to be the law of the land, pastors will have a lot of important decisions to make. If the government were to focus in on the churches and say you have to perform mixed race weddings or give up tax-exempt status, what will these preachers do? Will they stand on the word of God, and with the historical foundation of civilized societies, or will they cave in – in the name of financial and political expediency?”…

    Coughlin warns what is at stake is the creation of nothing less than a new legal and religious order built upon the destruction of the First Amendment.

    He maintains, “If the government can force a church to perform mixed race weddings, then in effect the First Amendment to the Constitution has been completely destroyed. At that point, the government is creating a new religion, a new state church, because they are saying what Christianity is and is not…

    Coughlin looks to history for examples of how Americans can resist the kind of possible “enslavement” he sees coming for Christians.

    He asks believers: “When the First Amendment is gone – trampled in the dirt under our nose, and we are forced to submit to godlessness at gunpoint or economic destruction, will we roll over and put ourselves under the tyranny of those who would desire to enslave us and dominate us? Or will we take measures like our Founding Fathers took?”

  • alanb

    Carl Gallups is a birther, a Sandy Hook truther and a young-Earth creationist. Evidence and logic do not appear to be his strong suits.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    What ridiculous right-wing screed would be complete without invoking the Founding Fathers?

    What r.r-w.s. is complete without invoking Hitler?

    They could save time & pixels by declaring Hitler a Founding Father, like they already did with Jesus.

  • http://wanderinweeta.blogspot.com Susannah

    If the government were to focus in on the churches and say you have to perform gay weddings or give up tax-exempt status, what will these preachers do? Will they stand on the word of God, and with the historical foundation of civilized societies, or will they cave in – in the name of financial and political expediency?”

    They will cave. They always have, when their income has been threatened.

    They don’t even need the government to step in. The market, people voting with their feet, will do the trick.

  • dingojack

    Has Carl Gallups ever considered running for political office, as V.P under Presidential hopeful Duane Gish?

    The bumper sticker would almost justify their existence (almost).

    @@ Dingo

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    She’s got a point. If gay marriage is legal, churches will be forced to perform them, because how else can two people get married? Look what happened in Canada. The Catholic Church had no choice but to pack up and leave.

  • John Pieret

    Trumpet Days of Revelation

    Dibbs on name for my brass band.

    As for the rest, two words: “Ministerial Exception.”

  • dingojack

    Here, in 2012 (the most recent data I could dig up), there were 118,962 marriages* :

    32,600 were celebrated by ministers of religion (27.4%)

    86,304 were by civil celebrants (72.5%)

    [58 (0.0488%) were not defined, or not stated].

    It seem to me the solution to this whole gay marriage thing seems fairly simple.

    No need for ‘ministerial exemptions’, just de-regulate the marriage market. Those ministers of religion who don’t want to do it can pass the work on to those who are willing to do the job.

    Dingo

    ———

    * ≈ 510 per 100,000 population

  • dingojack

    I found one of those new-fangled ‘rock and/or roll’ songs that seems appropriate —

    it says (in part):

    Come senators, congressmen

    Please heed the call

    Don’t stand in the doorway

    Don’t block up the hall

    For he that gets hurt

    Will be he who has stalled

    There’s a battle outside ragin’

    It’ll soon shake your windows

    And rattle your walls

    For the times they are a-changin’

    Come mothers and fathers

    Throughout the land

    And don’t criticize

    What you can’t understand

    Your sons and your daughters

    Are beyond your command

    Your old road is rapidly agin’

    Please get out of the new one

    If you can’t lend your hand

    For the times they are a-changin’ “

    @@ Dingo

  • smrnda

    These dinosaurs imagine that the clergy would even be asked to perform a marriage, gay or otherwise. As was stated above by dingojack, clergy have long ceased to be the ‘go to’ people for a marriage. They’re becoming obsolete. Nobody will care if they will or wont’ marry them.

  • yaque

    Aw Geez, Modus, you’ve already got all the internetz, what more do you want?! There’s nothing left!! … *sobs*

  • frankgturner

    @ Pierce R. Butler #6

    Getting the Godwin out of the way this early are we?

    .

    @ Susannah #7

    Nothing like the free market to get the point across is there?

    .

    @ dingojack #11

    WTF is their job anyway? (Sarcasm)

    .

    @ smrdna #13

    That’s slowly been happening already. This just drives another nail into it so to speak. Its what they have been scared of all along.

  • dingojack

    frankgturner – since you asked

    Dingo

  • jeevmon

    There is some truth to the idea that the foundational gripe of the religious right was not Roe v. Wade and abortion, but rather Green v. Kennedy and tax exempt status for schools that engaged in racial discrimination. So there is a consistency here.

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    Ironic, this, coming from people who, if they were alive 150 years ago, likely would have been defending slavery using their same Bibles.

    In the ruling that was overturned in the Loving v. Virginia decision the judge noted that God had separated the races on their own continents, showing His wish that they not mix together.

    … Then, somehow, He forgot to prevent the invention of ships and planes, thwarting His carefully laid plans.

    * I can’t swear Schafly wasn’t around in the 1860s. She looks as if it is at least a possibility.

  • frankgturner

    @ jeevmon #17

    If you mean that it is ultimately about money I largely agree that money is a major factor.

    .

    @ fifthdentist #18

    Ironic? I might say “expected.” That is why abb3w does the exercise of replacing words like in #4 just to show that it is the SAME argument with different words in place. A lot of humans get used to a routine, a tradition, and can’t adjust well to change, so they resist it.

  • abb3w

    frankgturner

    That is why abb3w does the exercise of replacing words like in #4 just to show that it is the SAME argument with different words in place.

    Part of it. Sometimes it’s the same arguments against the policy; sometimes it’s that there’s rhetoric about what the consequences allegedly will be — which consequences would have had parallels back then, and with in most cases history showing that those alleged consequences have not come to pass, implying that the modus tollens style arguments are somewhere between specious and bogus. (Bob Jones U v US seems a notable exception; it indicates schools affiliated with religious institutions may have legitimate grounds to consider their tax exempt status at risk.. just as they would for having racially discriminatory policies.)

    Another part is because it seems to really piss off folks who I think seem to really deserve being pissed off.

  • frankgturner

    @ abb3w #20

    LOL, fair enough. Thanks for explaining it.

  • thebookofdave

    @dingojack #8

    What to mean, almost? The candidate debates alone would make it all worthwhile. The audience would be breathless (as would Mr. Gish, being two years deceased) in anticipation of his spirited oratory.