Golly! Who Could Possibly Have Foreseen This?

Golly! Who Could Possibly Have Foreseen This? March 11, 2014

Rich gay guys immediately use gay “marriage” as platform for trying to force Church to perform gay “marriage” or punish them legally and financially if they resist.

That has, of course, been the goal all along. The gay movement is intolerant, punishing, militant, and hate-filled and cannot rest until it forces all, not merely to tolerate, but to profess the absolute goodness and greatness of homosex. It is narcissism on steroids and it must therefore do its utmost to punish and destroy the Church. That will work (after all, how many divisions does the Church have?) since the state is going to do nothing but support it since Caesar wants to destroy his rival as well. That is, it will work right up until the moment that Western civilization collapses and the Church again becomes the only institution capable of weathering that collapse. When people are struggling for food and shelter, they forget the boutique fantasies of a decadent culture.

Ash Wednesday is a good day for remembering that exile to the desert is not at all unChristian.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Humphrey

    Good for them.They have their enemy on the ground and they go for the kill.

    These people know how to win.We are enemies but you have to admire them.

    In 10 or 20 years they will have Catholic Church throwing rice in their weedings.

    • James H, London

      “In 10 or 20 years they will have Catholic Church throwing rice in their weedings”

      I would like to throw rice in their weedings – as long as I was planning on actually planting rice! The weeds have to go, you know.

      I wouldn’t be so sure if I were you. Remember the church was also supposed to have women priests by now; and divorce; and contraception. Buggery will be made illegal again as soon as there’s a Moslem majority in Europe (which on current demographics will happen by the middle of this century).

      • Humphrey

        No,no, Church will not perform those “marriages”,that will never happen,but when those “marriages” become law of the land so to speak, Church will just tolerate it and stop fighting against it.And then you can throw rice in those weddings and still claim that for you marriage is between man and woman.

        p.s.I am sorry if my english is bad.

    • Benjamin2.0

      In 10 or 20 years they will have Catholic Church throwing rice in their weedings.
      They’ll sue for that, too. Rice is bad for birds. You just can’t win when it’s already been decided you’ll lose.

    • SteveP

      Admiration? No, I have been willing to compromise in the past and attribute that to the “winning” streak. However, seeing the unabashed envy and greed . . . the willingness to reach compromise has been lost. The fight is now just beginning.

    • MarylandBill

      I am not sure about that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an “Official Catholic Church” that was doing it and an underground church that was holding to traditional beliefs. Maybe in Africa the Church will still be able to preach openly, assuming we don’t invade them for their “human rights abuses”.

  • Brian

    I have to believe this is some elaborate satire.

    “As much as people are saying this is a good thing, I am still not getting what I want.”

    People don’t file massive wide reaching lawsuits because of what they “want”, right?


    Paging the Philosopher Jagger.

    • IRVCath

      You have no idea what plaintiffs with more money than sense will do.

  • kenofken

    This is why you want total separation of church and state in a modern democracy. This couple’s only grounds for suing, or at least their only realistic chance of success will come from CofE’s status as a state church. If your church is a state agency, gay couples can argue equal access just as they would at a park agency, the local courthouse or historical site or anywhere else that might allow or conduct weddings.

    • SteveP

      “Gay couples” can argue all they want; CoE said “No.” Are those “gay couples” mature enough to accept the answer or will they continue their juvenile tantrum?

    • chezami

      If you think the paper barrier of the first amendment is going to stop such people from trying to use gay marriage to punish the Church, you are dreaming.

      • Irksome1

        I’m sure there will be frivolous lawsuits filed in America over nonsense such as this, but I think kenofken has a point about the Church of England’s special status as the official church of a state that recognizes same-sex marriages. The United States deliberately has no parallel institution. The grounds on which to launch such a lawsuit simply don’t exist here. I don’t think you could even call a church a “public accommodation,” like you could a baker or a photographer. ahightower’s concern above about losing tax-exempt status seems more realistic.

        It’s true the gay community has its share of loud-mouthed jerks as well as some who may derive sadistic pleasure out of forcing a Christian minister to solemnize a same-sex union against his principles. Those types of individuals seem to be very few in number, however, and it beggars belief that such a couple would really want to waste their time with a hostile minister and spend a fortune on legal fees rather than, say, cake and photography.

        Still, for the sake of argument, let’s grant that such a case is coming (perhaps from Massachusetts or California). Why is a result other than legal defeat for the same-sex couple and social stigmatization for the church/minister in question any more likely?

        • SteveP

          I’m not sure if you heard the phrase, during the AZ SB 1062 scuffle, “Gay money spends just as good” but that was one of the underpinnings of the argument against the bill—you cannot say “No” to someone who wants to pay for a good or service you offer. While we know a tithe is not a payment for sacraments–indeed we believe because we know we cannot pay for our redemption–how difficult is it to make the argument that a tithe is indeed a payment and by not permitting the Sacrament of Marriage to a “gay couple” public (because money is transferred) accommodation is violated?

          As Mark pointed out, protection of religious freedom is paper-thin and I’d also strongly suggest that the wall between private and public is reduced to a speed bump soon to be scraped off the progress road altogether.

          • kenofken

            So long as tithing is not a bare fee-for-service offered to all comers, it won’t be treated as a public accommodation. If a church sets itself up so that the only real membership requirement is a fee, and its understood you then have access to all of its rites, then you would be open to public accommodation claims. The online outfits that sell minister’s credentials to anyone wouldn’t be able to deny them to gays or lesbians, for example (though they aren’t inclined to do so anyway). Any religion which has a bona fide belief system (ie something more fixed and deep than “maximizing shareholder value”, has the protection of the Free Exercise Clause, which is still more of a mountain range than a speed bump.

            • SteveP

              Your attempt at soothing tones, “it won’t happen here,” is quite transparent. You seem not to grasp the enormity of the public accommodation laws used to dismantle legal public segregation are then used to cast a private business as a public entity – e.g. an entity funded from the common purse. Rather I’d guess you do grasp it and attempt to camouflage the tactic that will be used.
              You cannot break the Rock; you will only continue to break yourself against the Rock.

          • IRVCath

            Well, there is the fact that the priest at his discretion can waive the customary donations expected.

      • kenofken

        Nothing will stop anyone from “trying” to do anything in a court. I once knew an attorney who filed a motion demanding the right to smoke marijuana during his own disbarment proceedings. People attempt to sue God with some regularity.

        The First Amendment is more than a paper barrier. It is a foundational concept of our country and a very deep body of case law. It is quite simply the most powerful and expansive codification of freedom of speech and religion anywhere in the world or in human history. Courts of every legal and political persuasion have accorded the First Amendment a degree of reverence that dwarfs the rest of the Bill of Rights. The First has safeguarded the rights of even the most unpopular and tiny sects.

        The courts have shown zero interest in meddling in the internal affairs or practices of churches. The Hosanna-Tabor decision, which was unanimous, put religious groups hiring and labor practices beyond the reach of federal equal employment law, a fairly compelling state interest. There is no realistic or forseeable circumstance in which a gay couple will prevail in forcing a church to administer its sacraments against its doctrine. They probably will be liable to public accommodations law insofar as they do public business, ie renting halls for weddings etc.

        My point is that conservative Christians, who have generally shown a great deal of contempt for separation of church and state, are seeing firsthand why church, as well as state, is well-served by this separation.

  • Andy

    The money quote: “I am still not getting what I want.”
    (insert the bratty girl from Willie Wonka who wants an oompa loompa)
    We think we have protection from this silliness in the US, but I’m sure they’ll attack our tax-exempt status soon enough.

    • Irksome1

      Perhaps the Church ought to voluntarily give up her tax-exempt status. That’s what Bob Jones University did, and it’s getting along admirably. Once free of the compromises that necessarily come from colluding with Caesar, the Church in America will find herself better able to preach a complete and unvarnished Gospel.

      • Rosemarie


        Then priests could also electioneer from the pulpit to their hearts’ content. Though that would cause other problems.

    • Joejoe

      The alternate money quote references that the couple is “forced to sue Christians.”

      Really? Force requires action of another. Who’s doing the forcing?

  • Heather

    Now to be fair, this story is fairly old (August 2013) and when I last heard about it, there were very few gay people actually supporting this stunt lawsuit. The general response all around seemed to be that this couple were being obnoxious jerks, even among people who support SSM.

    I know it makes it more difficult to make those lovely sweeping polemical statements, but try to keep in mind that the “gay movement” is hardly monolithic. Most folks have no interest in actively destroying civilization and stomping all over people’s religious rights. They just want to be able to have their “spouse and white picket fence” dream like everyone else and don’t think about the wider implications.

    You do specify that it is the “gay movement” and not simply “TEH GAYS” that are out to destroy civilization, but I don’t know if that distinction is clear enough.
    You are in general quite sensitive towards folks who are gay (or same sex attracted or whatever the shibboleth du jour is) and trying to follow the teachings of the Church. But what about those who are not there yet? What about that person who is trying to reconcile their faith and their attractions (or those of their parent or child or sibling or best friend or whatever) and hasn’t got it sorted out yet?

    I have a member of my immediate family who is legally “married” to their same sex partner. When I became Catholic, I was at a point of “I will accept these teachings but I don’t fully understand why they have to be what they are” and it took me years to fully internalize the Church’s teachings on the subject. Hearing about how TEH GAYS ARE OUT TO GET US would have been more likely to make me resistant than to actually help my moral formation, because it simply didn’t match up to my experience of my loved ones.

    Don’t get me wrong, there are some enormous jerks out there, and there certainly are people who are actively hostile to the Church, or at least to whatever distorted idea they have of what the Church is. But even they might be better served with a call for prayers for their conversion than doom and gloom about how they are out to get us.

    • Dave G.

      My concern, from the responses I see to stories like this, is that advocates of gay marriage come out of it feeling good by saying ‘we won’t mandate conformity as long as you remain sequestered in your churches and synagogues. Of course as soon as you step one foot outside of your religious establishments, you belong to the state mandated morality. But inside, behind closed doors and locked shutters? By all means, continue your bigotry and homophobia.’ Literally. I’ve heard discussions on Cable news shows and read comments and posts by advocates of gay marriage, and that seems to be a common argument. Oh no, they don’t want religious freedom crushed – inside religious establishments. For me, that’s the problem. Not folks like this, who wouldn’t have much traction in the US anyway. But the much larger numbers who seem to think that by banning non-conformity to the religious catacombs, they’ve obtained some new level of diversity.

      Sort of the old sales trick. Offer a product for 10,000.00 and then when you drop it to 5,000.00, the client is happy to buy. So say, however subtly, ‘we could kick in your church doors and insist on conformity or else…but we’re so good, we’ll let you continue your bigotry as long as it’s inside your churches.’ To which the client says, “Whew! That’s not so bad! I’ll take two dozen.’

    • Elaine S.

      The “gay movement” is in all probability about as monolithic and representative of homosexuals in general as the “women’s movement” is of women in general.

    • Nightsong

      Heather, you’re absolutely right, Shea is going for outrage (and pageviews) here instead of asking for prayers or noting that this is an isolated case involving one couple that does not necessarily have the support of the wider gay community.

      Notice that Shea does not mention that this lawsuit is filed in the UK, which has a different court system and different values, and isn’t exactly an example of separation of church and state. The lawsuit is filed against the Church of England. Any similar effort in the US would by definition target every religion and denomination, from Catholicism to Judaism and Islam. Not only has this failed to get any real traction in the UK, but this is not a line that has ever been crossed in the United States, and I cannot see it happening in the near future — the pushback would be enormous, deafening and disastrous, and would ruin the political careers of any proponent tin-eared enough to try it here in the U.S. Even most Democrats wouldn’t go there, and even the most ultra-liberal of them is savvy enough to realize it’s not a winning fight. And have we heard ANYTHING about this since Aug. 2013?

      Also notice that Shea takes the first opportunity to lump all gay rights together as “narcissism on steroids” and gay relationships as “boutique fantasies of a decadent culture,” as if gays are vampires gorging on blood in their massive mansion-covens, or as if homosexuality only exists in wealthy western countries.

      Then he goes off on some tangent about how Western Civilization is going to collapse and we’ll all repent from our sins once we realize we need bread and water, or something. It’s incoherent, shrill nonsense designed explicitly to get people’s blood boiling, which isn’t exactly a noble or Catholic cause.