My hometown paper just printed an article by Steve Deace. I’ll give you the first bit of it so you can get a sense for the whole thing:
This spring, when the Supreme Court hears arguments on the gay marriage cases the justices accepted Friday, it is going to be hearing much more than a case on the definition of marriage. This case could ultimately determine our very way of life moving forward as a people.
The American view of law and government is summarized in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, by these three things:
• There is a God.
• Our rights come from God, not government.
• Government’s only role is to preserve and protect those God-given rights.
Should the Supreme Court decide it has the authority to essentially play God, and redefine an institution such as marriage which predates it by at least 5,000 years, they will be saying erotic liberty trumps religious liberty. In other words, the sexual revolution takes precedence over the American Revolution.
We have a winner. Anyway, I gave you that so I could give you my father’s beautiful response to it:
What a steaming and smelly pile of lies and falsehoods.
About “The American view of law and government is summarized in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence….” First lie already. Our founding document is the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was ratified on March 4, 1789 — thirteen years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and it is unequivocally the law of the land.
About “Should the Supreme Court decide it has the authority to essentially play God….” This isn’t what the SCOTUS is doing at all. It is instead fulfilling its obligation and responsibility to interpret the law as set forth in Article 3 of the Constitution and verified in 1802 under Marbury v. Madison. Judicial review has been established jurisprudence throughout the existence of the Untied States as a country.
As to “….they will be saying erotic liberty trumps religious liberty”, this also is flat not true. They are saying the equality under the law guaranteed by the Constitution trumps institutionalized bigotry and discrimination.
As to “There is no one in prison today, or faced with it, because they violated their state’s amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman”, the idea that if you haven’t thrown someone in jail then you have equally given them equal access to all the rights, benefits, and privileges given to other citizens under the law is just a totally bizarre idea.
About “This argument is about “you will be made to care.” NO, it isn’t. This argument is about equal access as citizens to the same rights, privileges, and benefits that other citizens are receiving from their government. Whether or not some religious fanatic “cares” or gives homosexuals some of that “love” they are always blathering about is irrelevant. What is relevant is that ALL citizens get equal treatment from their government.
About “Even if it means forcing you to validate what your conscience and/or religion teaches is immoral.” Just like if your conscience and/or religion teaches it is immoral for women to work, people to work on a Sunday or wear mixed fabric clothing, white folks to share drinking fountains with black folks, or for people of different races to wed. In other words, you don’t have to “validate” anything, you just don’t get to stop others from these things because you aren’t in favor of them.
About “…. the black fire chief of Atlanta, who used to serve in the Obama administration, and lost his job because he wrote a book on his personal time advocating the Bible’s views on sexuality.” Liar. He lost his job for proselytizing with it and forcing it on his subordinates at work. Cochran (fire chief) said his first priority is to run the department “to cultivate its culture to the glory of God.” That isn’t his job. Cochran raised constitutional concerns by proselytizing on the job. Public officials in leadership positions clearly do not have the right to force religious propaganda on their subordinates. Simply writing the book was not a problem; it became one when Cochran passed it out at work. Liar.
About “….he was fired anyway for being a Christian.” Anyone who doesn’t see right through this is willfully blind. The Atlanta Fire Dept. is chock full of Christians. If they were firing people for being Christian, they would have fired around 75% of the firemen. This is obviously another lie. He was fired for violating the city’s code of conduct, not for being a Christian.
As to “In my home state of Iowa, an award-winning newspaper editor lost his job for being a Christian, too.” Not according to his employers.
Shaw Media President John Rung, who owns the publication, issued a statement about the matter, asserting that Eschliman’s views could have harmed the newspaper’s reputation.“Last week, Mr. Eschliman expressed an opinion on his personal blog that in no way reflects the opinion of the Newton Daily News or Shaw Media,” he commented. “While Mr. Eschliman is entitled to his opinion, his public airing of it compromised the reputation of this newspaper and his ability to lead it.”
“Mr. Eschliman has a right to voice his opinion. And we have a right to select an editor who we believe best represents our company and best serves the interests of our readers,” he added.
It turns out newspaper editors or any other high profile employees don’t get to go around saying stuff their employer feels reflects negatively on that employer. Oh, the horrors. I suggest to you that if one of the vice presidents of one of our local banks went around on his free time denigrating Christians, he would be out of a job in no time flat. See how that works?
As to “Make no mistake, that is the end game here. To make religious people and institutions choose between following God, which the Constitution protects, or following political correctness.” Bull pucky. You can “follow God” to your heart’s content, but you don’t get to use the legal system to make second class citizens out of an entire demographic of American citizens. Let’s indeed make no mistake……THAT is your end game here. You can “follow God” until your head falls off, but you don’t get to define your following God as being allowed to deny equality under the law to American citizens.
As to “Does freedom come from God, as every Supreme Court justice acknowledges when they swear their oaths of office to Him?” This clown just makes it up as he goes along. What the justices acknowledge is “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States”. You know, the Constitution that includes the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equality under the law to all citizens. For anyone who can’t figure it out, that would include the homosexual ones. Unfortunately, religious extremists and theocrats such as this author either can’t figure that out or don’t have enough respect for the Constitution to not try to dance around it.
As noted in Article VI, all federal officials must take an oath in support of the Constitution:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
For the record, the actual oath is:
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
You might want to notice plainspeak such as “without respect to persons”, “equal right”, and “impartially”.
It’s a strange thing to be so certain one is right that they forego the need to research and learn. Never do I encounter such spectacular and degrading arrogance as frequently as with fundamentalist Christians.