PUBLIC SCHOOLS PUNISH CHRISTIAN EXPRESSION BUT HONOR MUSLIMS & LGBT CHANGES TO CURRICULUM~LEBANON, PA AND FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA FOR EXAMPLE

LEBANON, PENNSYLVANIA 

Public School Teachers Attend Mosque 

To Better Serve Muslim Students

SEE: http://beginningandend.com/pennsylvania-public-school-teachers-attend-mosque-to-better-serve-muslim-students/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The Lebanon High School faculty taxpayer-funded trip to a local mosque.

A group of teachers, faculty and administrators from a public school district in Pennsylvania took a full day trip to a mosque to learn about the religion of Islam, watch a worship service and ways they can better serve and accommodate the Muslim students in their schools. This type of trip is yet another example of the growing push to make all manner of exceptions for Islamic students while at the same time pushing the Bible and Christian expression out of schools.

An All-Day Public School Trip For Islam

The school district of Lebanon Valley, Pennsylvania sponsored a trip for its teachers and administration to a local mosque to learn about the religion of Islam. The group, which included the superintendent of the district, wanted training to better serve the Muslim students attending their public schools.

According to sources:

To bridge that cultural divide, about 50 district staff members attended an in-service workshop on Monday that included a trip to the Lebanon Valley Mosque. While there they learned about the practice of Islam, watched an afternoon Muslim prayer service and where treated to a lunch of Moroccan cuisine.
It was the second year that the workshop was offered to the staff, according to Fred Shattls, director of the district’s English as a Second Language department. The workshop was led by Mohamed Omar, a former teacher’s aide and Arabic translator for the district who also served a year as president of the mosque…The workshop began at the high school where Omar spoke about the histories and cultures of several Arab countries and the differences in their educational systems to that in the U.S.
At noon, the teachers took a bus to the mosque, located not far away at 13th and Florence streets. Following Islamic practice, each took off their shoes before entering the prayer room where they took a seat on a maroon-colored carpet with intricate designs. (source).

At the mosque teachers and staff were able to ask about the religious practices of Muslim students and how to fit them into the school day.  All of this was done to incorporate Muslim worship and show respect for the religious beliefs of the Muslim students at the public schools in the area.

A Blatant Double Standard

William Swimmer was suspended for wearing a shirt  that mentioned Jesus Christ.

The faculty Islamic field trip was just one of numerous examples of public schools catering to Muslim students while shunning Christianity and restricting the free speech of Christian students. Below are just a few examples where students who believe in The Lord Jesus Christ found their right of free expression restricted:

• A Canadian High school student was suspended for five days for wearing a t-shirt that read “Life Is Wasted Without Jesus.” (source).
• A 16-year old California student was suspended after refusing his public school’s orders to stop talking about his new-found Christian faith and bringing his Bible to school. (source).
• A 10-year old student assigned to write an essay about anyone she admired was told that her essay about looking up to God would not be accepted and was ordered to remove the essay from school grounds. (source).
• At various high schools across the United States, High School valedictorians have been told by schools they were not permitted to discuss their Christian faith or even mention Jesus Christ in their graduation speeches. (source).

In all these incidents the public schools justified their actions against Christian students on the basis of “separation of church” and state – the notion that a public school should never accommodate or promote a religious belief. At the same time public schools  have gone out of their way to cater to the Muslim religion. One public high school provided an all-girls prom for Muslims in accordance with Islamic teachings on female etiquette. A San Diego elementary school created an extra recess period to give Muslim children more time to pray. A Michigan High School football team moved its practices to midnight in order for students fasting for the Islamic holiday of Ramadan to be able to eat and drink water at night (when the religion permits it). High school students were kept at practice until 3AM (then having to return to school for class the next morning between 7:30-8:00AM) all in the name of religious observance. Many public universities offer prayer rooms, foot baths and Muslim ritually approved food. Why are there no complaints about “separation” of church and state when it comes to the special treatment for Muslim students at public institutions?

A photo from the Geography class at a Lumberton Public School in Texas.

Even teachings of Islam are promoted in public schools. At a Texas public school a teacher dressed girls up in Islamic burqas and taught a lesson that stated Allah is “the Almighty God” and referred to Islamic terrorists as “freedom fighters”. (source).

Pray for the public school system and its agenda which is clearly hostile to Biblical Christianity while catering to Islam. If school leaders are going to visit mosques during work hours, pray that taxpayer money start paying for visits to churches as well. As society moves farther away from the Bible and grows more hostile towards Jesus Christ and the Gospel, Christians and Bible-believing churches need to be that much more outspoken in sharing their faith whether the public school system supports it or not.

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.“ – Jude 1:3.

_______________________________________________________

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA SCHOOLS

Fairfax County School Board Votes To Include Gender Identity Issues Into Their Curriculum

Fairfax County School Board Votes To Include Gender Identity Issues Into Their Curriculum

School Board adding transgender topic to 7th grade class

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/school-board-adding-transgender-topic-7th-grade-class/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Editor’s Note: It’s past time to remove your children from public (and almost all private) schools. Also notice how the sodomite loving reporter gives the last word to the sodomites.

washingtonpost.com

The Fairfax County School Board has approved expanding the school system’s sex education curriculum to include teaching teenagers in grades 7 through 10 about gender identity and transgender issues.

The 10-to-2 vote Thursday night came amid shouts of anger and howls of frustration from a raucous crowd that largely stood in opposition to the curriculum changes.

The board’s decision centered on changes to the Family Life Education curriculum across all grades. The revisions included adding lessons on gender issues for middle and high school students. But some of those who opposed the changes questioned whether the revisions would trickle down to the lower grades.

Opponents also expressed concern that some of the revisions would move certain sensitive lessons out of the Family Life Education curriculum and into health class, which would remove parents’ ability to opt-out their children from learning the material. The health class is a required course; Family Life Education is not.

Andrea Lafferty, a Fairfax resident who is president of the Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative lobbying group, described the lesson changes as overreach by the School Board.

“Parents: Do you want your children in kindergarten to hear about same-sex marriage under the guise of families?” Lafferty asked.

Many in the crowd responded loudly: “No.”

The vote came a day before the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to allow gay marriage in all 50 states. In May, the School Board voted to expand the school system’s anti-discrimination policy to include protections for transgender students and staff.

In video testimony played at the meeting, Adam Hiatt said the curriculum changes should not be approved because they would go “against the teaching and faith of most major world religions.”

“Today’s version of the Nazi Germany description would be something like this: ‘First they came for traditional marriage, and I did not speak out because I wanted to be tolerant,” Hiatt said. “Then they came for the children in our schools, and I did not speak out. . . . Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”

In response to vehement opposition that board members received via e-mail, the board appeared prepared to delay voting on the issue until July. Board member Patty Reed (Providence) offered a proposal to wait a month before voting on the new curriculum. Board member Elizabeth Schultz (Springfield) brought up a motion to table the matter until a later date.

At the last minute, the board moved ahead and overwhelmingly voted in support of the lesson changes, with Reed and Schultz the only votes against the new curriculum. In a slight concession, the board also voted to move some of the earlier proposed lessons back to their original place in the Family Life Education curriculum, allowing parental opt-outs for children.

Robert Rigby, adviser to the West Potomac High School student lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender group, said he was proud that the School Board voted to approve the curriculum changes.

“The unruly crowd seemed to be trying to bully the School Board,” Rigby said.

“But the board showed the same courage in the face of those shouts that it showed in May, when it voted to add gender identity to the FCPS anti-discrimination policy.”

OBAMA & SUPREME COURT SEIZING TOTAL CONTROL~SUPREME COURT PROTECTS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' "RIGHT TO VOTE"

Supreme Corruption, Conflict of Interest & Power Grab

Published on Jun 30, 2015

It’s not just the big decisions of last week on ObamaCare & marriage. In the last few days the Supreme Court has released a flurry of decisions affecting a multitude of issues. As Scalia pointed out, the “rulers of 320 million Americans” are the majority of 9 politically appointed judges.

OBAMA & SUPREME COURT 

SEIZING TOTAL CONTROL

The End Of American Freedom Has Begun

Ron Paul's Dire Warning

They're Coming For The Guns

Published on Jun 26, 2015

On this Thursday, June 25th edition of the Infowars Nightly News Darrin McBreen talks with David Knight and Anthony Gucciardi about the TPP, then gun control and what that really means.

Supreme Court Refusal Protects 

Illegal Immigrants' "Right to Vote"

BY  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21172-supreme-court-refusal-protects-illegal-immigrants-right-to-vote;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Yet another rejection of constitutional principles by the Supreme Court has been overlooked in the furor over the pro-Obamacare and same-sex marriage decisions.

This time, it’s not what the justices said, but what they refused to say that is noteworthy.

Reuters reports that the high court’s refusal to hear an appeal of the decision in the case of Kobach, et al. v. Election Assistance Commission, et al, had the effect of upholding the ruling handed down last November by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Kansas City Star provided the following summary of the facts of the case:

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that Kansas cannot require proof-of-citizenship documents — almost always a birth certificate or passport — from prospective voters who register using a federal voter registration form. The court also said that a federal agency doesn’t have to alter the form to fit Kansas requirements.

Arizona has a similar proof-of-citzenship requirement, and Kobach argued the case on behalf of both states in conjunction with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett.

In other words, individuals showing up to the polls in Arizona and Kansas can no longer be required to demonstrate proof of U.S. citizenship, opening the ballot box to illegal immigrants.

Daily Caller reported on the president’s support of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal: "Both the Obama administration and various voter-rights groups — including the League of Women Voters and the League of United Latin-American Citizens — urged the Supreme Court not the hear the case, and SCOTUS’ rejection marks what Bloomberg called a landmark victory for the 'groups that battled the two states in court.'"

Roll Call similarly recorded the glee of those opposed to the higher Arizona and Kansas eligibility standards:

In a joint statement, the League of Women Voters of Arizona and Kansas and the Brennan Center for Justice praised the court for “reaffirming the important role Congress plays in preserving a fair voter registration process across the country.” The LWV, represented by the Brennan Center and several law firms, was a defendant in the case with the EAC.

“This is an important win for the National Voter Registration Act and an important step forward in making sure that all that are eligible are registered to vote,” President of the League of Women Voters of the U.S. Elisabeth MacNamara said in a statement.

The Kansas secretary of state isn’t convinced that the Supreme Court can interfere with the state’s imposition of voter registration requirements. Again, from Daily Caller:

“Our position in court is that we’re exercising our state’s right to define the qualifications of electors,” Kobach told CQ Roll Call Monday afternoon. “By creating this loophole, the federal agency is interfering,” he said in reference to the EAC.

Kobach emphasized the court’s decision not to review the case does not reflect its opinion on the issues of the case.

“The Supreme Court decision not to review was not particularly surprising given the fact that there was no circuit split yet,” he said.

Typically, Kobach continued, “the Supreme Court favors reviewing decisions where one circuit has gone one way and another circuit has gone another way. It appears that the Supreme Court is waiting for another circuit to weigh in.” He expects the 11th Circuit, which he said has jurisdiction over two states with similar proof-of-citizenship laws, to eventually get involved.

Kobach is right.

The very idea that the federal government should have power over the voter rolls is anathema to the Constitution. Article I, Section 4 clearly mandates that, "The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof."

The voter eligibility issue isn’t Kobach’s first foray into fighting the federal government.

In 2013, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback informing him that the Obama administration would ignore a Kansas law nullifying federal gun control laws. Furthermore, Holder warned the governor that federal agents would “take all appropriate actions” to enforce federal gun control laws, calling the Kansas statute “unconstitutional.”

In an interview with Fox News conducted after receiving Holder’s threat, Kobach laid out his state’s position.

“We are very, very confident of our position,” he said. “The state of Kansas is not in any way afraid of a legal challenge.”

With his stance on the proof of citizenship voting requirement, Kobach shows he’s committed to keeping his word.

As for why he is willing to fight so hard to hold on to the citizenship standard for voting, Kobach said, “Every time an alien votes, it may not steal an election, but it will cancel out a vote of a U.S. citizen.”

The Founders shared Kobach’s dedication to maintaining the integrity of the ballot. In 1763, John Adams wrote:

We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our hands; we have a check upon two branches of the legislature ... the power I mean of electing at stated periods [each] branch.... It becomes necessary to every [citizen] then, to be in some degree a statesman, and to examine and judge for himself of the tendency of political principles and measures. Let us examine, then, with a sober, a manly ... and a Christian spirit; let us neglect all party [loyalty] and advert to facts; let us believe no man to be infallible or impeccable in government any more than in religion; take no man’s word against evidence, nor implicitly adopt the sentiments of others who may be deceived themselves, or may be interested in deceiving us.

Sam Adams shared his cousin’s opinion: "Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country."

Alexander Hamilton declared, "A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law."

Finally, Thomas Jefferson said, "The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the wisdom, and resting on the will of the people."

The Supreme Court’s refusal to consider the Kobach case could be considered part of a larger “combination to subvert” our Constitution. If those who have no legal status in the United States are allowed to share suffrage with citizens, there is a good chance that candidates promising more “bread” and free tickets to the federal “circuses” will be elected.

State authority to set the manner of elections must be protected, if not by the Supreme Court then by the supreme sovereign: the people.

PUSH COMES TO SHOVE: ARE CHRISTIANS AWAKE NOW? THE FALLOUT & IMPLICATIONS FROM THE "SUPREME" COURT'S GAY "MARRIAGE" MANDATE

ROMANS 1: 18-32

JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO WARNS: 

DEFENDERS OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE 

NOW RISK BEING TREATED AS BIGOTS 

BY GOVERNMENTS, EMPLOYERS, SCHOOLS

Decision “will be used to vilify Americans unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”

by CNS NEWS | TERENCE P. JEFFREY | JUNE 28, 2015

SEE: http://www.infowars.com/alito-warns-defenders-of-traditional-marriage-now-risk-being-treated-as-bigots-by-governments-employers-schools/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

In his dissent from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared that same-sex marriage is a right, Justice Samuel Alito said the court had falsely likened opposition to same-sex marriage to racism and that its decision “will be used to vilify Americans unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”

Alito warned that in the wake of the court’s ruling, Americans who dare to publicly express views in favor the traditional understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman will risk recrimination.

“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools,” Alito wrote.

“By imposing its own views on the entire country,” he said, “the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.”

Here is a key excerpt from Alito’s dissent:

Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reas­sure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. Ante, at 26–27. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

The system of federalism established by our Constitu­tion provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex mar­riage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facili­tates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turn- about is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.

_____________________________________________________

Pushback Against Supremes’ Same-sex "Marriage" Ruling Begins

BY Bob Adelmann

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/21153-pushback-against-supremes-same-sex-marriage-ruling-begins; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

"No doubt anticipating what was coming in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on Friday, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Representative Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) introduced bills a week earlier to keep the federal government from discriminating against individuals and groups exercising what is now left of their First Amendment rights. Called the First Amendment Defense Act, Lee asked rhetorically:

If five judges on the Supreme Court have pronounced, in a breath-taking presumption of power, that all 50 states must redefine marriage, what does that mean for the countless institutions within our civil society — churches and synagogues, charities and adoption agencies, counseling services and religiously-affiliated schools — that are made up of American citizens who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman?

Will eager overzealous federal agencies start using the decision as reasons to withdraw federal grants, limit student loans, and revoke tax exemptions on the basis of what was once free expression on the matter? Will it attempt to apply sanctions against home-school moms teaching the Bible? Will it force bakers to bake, private halls to host, small business owners to compromise firmly held beliefs that once were protected by the First Amendment?

Wrote Lee:

Will federal agencies follow the heavy-handed approach taken by the present majority of Supreme Court justices – say, by revoking the non-profit, tax-exempt status of faith-based schools that continue to operate on the basis of their religious beliefs about marriage?

Lee and Labrador introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which would “prevent any agency from denying federal tax exemption, grant, contract, accreditation, license, or certification to an individual or institution for acting on their religious belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.”

One measure of how highly unlikely such legislation is ever to see the light of day is this: In the Senate Lee has so far only been able to garner 18 cosponsors (out of 100 Senators), while Labrador has enlisted the help of just 57 of his colleagues (out of 435). That this bill hasn’t attracted the support of every senator and representative is reflective of just how far down the slippery slope of amorality and degradation the culture has moved in recent years. As Lee noted, “The right to form and to follow one’s religious beliefs is the bedrock of human dignity and liberty that must be forcefully defended from governmental interference.”

That right has been under attack for years. The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday merely codifies and cements into place the culture’s determination that restrictions on behavior are per se unconstitutional. Ask Catholic Charities of Boston, which was forced to stop providing adoption services because they wouldn’t bend to the culture’s insistence that children be placed in the homes of those practicing sodomy — i.e., same-sex couples.

Ask Aaron and Melissa Klein who were forced to close their Oregon bakery after being fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Ask the United Methodist Church in New Jersey, which suffered an adverse ruling from a judge when its retreat house refused to hold a same-sex ceremony on its premises. Ask former Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran of Atlanta, who was fired by the mayor for expressing his personal beliefs on the matter in a Bible study publication.

These are just precursors to the persecution about to engulf the faith-based community in the country. As Lee posited:

The next controversies will … be over whether people who don’t think so may keep their business licenses, whether colleges that don’t think so will be able to keep their accreditation, whether military chaplains who don’t think so will be court-martialed, whether churches who don’t think so will be targeted for reprisal by the state, whether heterodox religious belief itself will be swept from the public square.

That’s why these two bills, although a start, are so much less than they could have been: limiting the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction through decisions of the Congress as just one example. Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) offered just such a bill back in April that would, utilizing powers granted to Congress under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, strip the power from the Supreme Court “to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, any type of marriage.”

Congress has the power to do more than just slap the wrists of federal agencies inclined to punish individuals and institutions for not getting on board on the issue of same-sex marriage — much more. It should do so. The First Amendment Defense Act offered by Lee and Labrador is just a beginning."

Related article:

Supreme Court Rubber Stamps Same-sex “Marriage” — Time for Nullification
_____________________________________________________________

Supreme Corruption, Conflict of Interest & Power Grab

Published on Jun 30, 2015

It’s not just the big decisions of last week on ObamaCare & marriage. In the last few days the Supreme Court has released a flurry of decisions affecting a multitude of issues. As Scalia pointed out, the “rulers of 320 million Americans” are the majority of 9 politically appointed judges.

"ABORTION CENTERS IN TEXAS WILL STAY OPEN FOR BUSINESS"

"EXECUTION DRUGS PERMITTED"

"STATES CANNOT REQUIRE IDENTIFICATION AND/OR 

CITIZENSHIP FOR VOTING"

JUSTICES GINSBURG & KAGAN HAVE OFFICIATED AT GAY "MARRIAGES" BEFORE THE FULL COURT MET

In 2013, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made history when she 

presided over the first gay marriage inside the U.S. Supreme Court.

ELENA KAGAN "MARRIED" THESE TWO

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2765352/Justice-Kagan-performs-sex-wedding.html

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has performed her first same-sex wedding, it was today revealed. 

The 54-year-old justice presided over the wedding of former law clerk Mitchell Reich and his partner Patrick Pearsall in the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland, yesterday.

It was the first ceremony for a gay or lesbian couple at which Kagan officiated, Supreme Court spokesman Kathy Arberg confirmed.

But she is not the first ever Supreme Court to have done so - with retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg both having previously performed same-sex weddings.

SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR

Days of Lot : The Sodomite Beast changing laws of Traditional Marriage in America (Jun 29, 2015)

Published on Jun 29, 2015

News Articles:

That was FAST: Yesterday it was gay marriage; Now look who wants “equal rights”
http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-wa...

Gay Marriage Ruling Opens Door to Widespread Anti-Christian Bigotry
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governme...

Religious Conservatives Will Be Vilified and Marginalized, Lose Their Religious Freedom, Justices Warn in Gay Marriage Dissenting Opinions
http://www.christianpost.com/news/rel...

Alito Warns: Defenders of Traditional Marriage Now Risk Being Treated as Bigots by Governments, Employers, Schools
http://www.infowars.com/alito-warns-d...

500+ gay pride youth engulfed in flames in Taiwan as Biblical-scale firestorm spontaneously ignites, raining down fire from above
http://www.naturalnews.com/050232_gay...

Justice Alito: Christians Will Now Be Labeled As Bigots By Governments, Employers, Schools
http://rightwingnews.com/culture/just...

Marco Rubio: USA at ‘Water’s Edge’ of Declaring Christianity ‘Hate Speech’
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governme...

Top 10 Quotes from the Dissenting Justices on Same-Sex Marriage
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blo...

Benjamin Watson Just Smacked The Supreme Court With The One Thing About Marriage They Don’t Realize
http://conservativepost.com/benjamin-...

____________________________________________________________

The SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision

SEE: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3334/The-SCOTUS-Gay-Marriage-Decision.aspx; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

BY CHUCK BALDWIN

By now, everyone on the planet knows that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has rendered a decision to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. In a landmark 5-4 decision, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan ruled that states may not prohibit homosexual couples from getting “married.” The reasoning of their decision was based on the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process” clause.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy said, “Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall ‘deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.”

Obviously, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights specifically about the right of homosexuals to “marry.” But there is something in the Bill of Rights specifically about the right to keep and bear arms. Using the reasoning and conclusion of the Court’s homosexual “marriage” ruling, states have absolutely no authority to deny recognition of concealed carry permits that have been issued in other states. In other words, if the 14th Amendment protects an unspecified right (same-sex “marriage”), it certainly protects a specified right (the right to keep and bear arms). And since some states recognize the right of citizens to openly carry firearms, this right should also be determined to be protected by the 14th Amendment. If states must recognize driver’s licenses (and now same-sex “marriage” licenses) issued in other states, it is now clear that they must also be required to recognize concealed weapon licenses issued in other states.

See this report:

SCOTUS Same-sex Marriage Decision May Have Just Legalized The Concealed Carry Of Loaded Firearms Across All 50 States, Nullifying Gun Laws Everywhere  

It should be obvious to any objective person that by providing 14th Amendment protection to homosexual “marriage,” SCOTUS has banned most gun control laws throughout the country. However, I seriously doubt that the five justices passing the same-sex “marriage” decision had gun control in mind. Nevertheless, that shouldn’t stop gun rights activists from taking advantage of the SCOTUS decision.

Many libertarian jurists are lauding the SCOTUS same-sex decision as a victory for the right of individuals to enter into contracts with one another. But marriage is more than a “contract.” It is an institution--an institution created by GOD. No human authority can redefine what our Creator has already defined in both revealed and Natural Law. Forevermore, true marriage can only be between a man and a woman--a SCOTUS decision notwithstanding.

Senator Rand Paul wisely noted, “While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.

“The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.

“I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.

“Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.

“Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.

“It seems some rights are more equal than others.

“Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple contract.

“I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.

“Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals.

“This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.

“Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: ‘In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.’

“The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.

“Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”

See the report here:

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

Note that Dr. Paul correctly recognized that the SCOTUS attempted to render a “redefinition” of marriage. That it did.

Since the beginning of human history (not to mention Western Civilization) marriage has been recognized as being between a man and a woman. Again, marriage is much more than a civil contract.

As I have noted several times, the right of civil contracts includes the right of homosexuals to enter into civil unions. But marriage is NOT a civil union. Nor is it merely a civil contract. In fact, real marriage is NOT a civil matter at all. It is a spiritual matter. Civil governments can recognize or not recognize all they want; it doesn’t change the definition of marriage one iota. Civil governments can no more redefine marriage than they can redefine worship or prayer. Marriage is a divine institution. Therefore, it is completely outside the scope and jurisdiction of SCOTUS or any other civil authority.

The problem is that many years ago the Church decided to allow civil government licensing authority over marriage. When they did this, they absconded divine authority over marriage and reduced it into nothing more than just another government-sanctioned civil contract. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

The problem is not SCOTUS; the problem is the CHURCH.

Rand Paul is right: “Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”

So far, the only State to have the correct response to the SCOTUS decision is the State of Alabama, led by my friend Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. The State of Alabama is encouraging county courthouses to not issue ANY marriage licenses. And this is exactly what many Alabama counties are doing. This strategy should be replicated by all fifty states and the counties within those states.

Furthermore, pastors across the country should stop performing ALL marriages that are licensed by the State. In other words, the Church should do what it did for some 1,800+ years of Church history: keep the State out of the marriage business.

But all of that doesn’t change the intention of the Court decision and the agenda of the radical secularists who are the impetus behind the decision and their attempt to expunge all semblances of Christianity (and morality) from America’s public life.

In the majority decision, Justice Kennedy attempted to throw people of faith a bone by stating, “Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

However, notice that Kennedy said that religious people may “advocate” for traditional marriage, but he said nothing about non-compliance. What will happen to those pastors and churches that refuse to “marry” same-sex couples? If you think for one minute that radical homosexuals are going to be content with a Supreme Court decision that doesn’t have enforcement power, you are very mistaken.

Already, allies of the militant homosexual agenda are promoting public censorship and the loss of tax exempt status for those churches that refuse to submit to the Supreme Court decision.

My friend Cal Thomas got it right: “Given their political clout and antipathy to Christian doctrines, some gay activists are likely to go after the tax-exempt status of Christian colleges that prohibit cohabitation of unmarried students, or openly homosexual ones, as well as churches that refuse to marry them. As with legal challenges to the owners of bakeries that have been in the news for refusing to bake a cake for same-sex weddings, activists who demand total conformity to their agenda will seek to put out of business and silence anyone who believes differently.”

See Cal’s column here:

You've Been Warned, America, Gay Marriage Is Just The Beginning

Cal is exactly right. The purge has already begun.

“CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that it wasn’t legal ‘to talk about gay people the way Justice Scalia used to talk about gay people’ while recounting Scalia’s prior dissent in Lawrence v. Texas on Friday’s ‘CNN Newsroom.’”

See the report here:

CNN's Toobin: Not 'Legal' For Scalia To Talk About Gay People Like He Used To

Again, this is from CNN’s SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST. “Beam me up, Mr. Speaker.” Anti-Christian purgers are already advocating the cancellation of the right of free speech in the wake of the SCOTUS decision.

Look at this: “A newspaper in Harrisburg, PA has announced henceforth it intends to censor certain views about marriage deemed no better than racism, sexism, anti-Semitism.

“John L. Micek, editorial page editor and formerly state capital reporter, made the announcement shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its imposition of gay marriage on the county. Micek wrote:

“‘As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same sex marriage.’ In a Tweet later in the day, Micek doubled down, ‘This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic letters. To that we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.’”

Here is the report:

Pennsylvania Newspaper Censors All Dissent On Same-sex Marriage

You can take this to the bank: there will be hundreds of local and State laws reflecting the SCOTUS decision and hundreds of lawsuits forthcoming against people who seek to live by their religious convictions to not directly participate in homosexual “marriages.” And that means there will be hundreds of court decisions ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, hundreds of arrest warrants, civil fines, prison sentences, etc. Anyone who doesn’t see this coming is blind.

Then there is this column written by Mark Oppenheimer who writes for America’s flagship newspaper, The New York Times, calling for the elimination of tax-exempt status for churches on the heels of the SCOTUS gay “marriage” decision.

See Mark’s column here:

Now’s The Time To End Tax Exemptions For Religious Institutions

You can mark it down: his will not be the last such call.

So, this begs the question, what will all of these Romans 13 “obey-the-government-no-matter-what” preachers do now? When they are told by the IRS and local civil authorities to “marry” homosexuals or lose their tax exemption--or maybe even go to jail--what will they do?

All of this goes back to what I’ve been saying for years: the Church is to blame for this mess. Pastors are to blame for this mess.

For decades, pastors and churches allowed the state to supplant the authority of Christ over them. They volunteered to become creatures of the state by submitting to the IRS 501c3 non-profit, tax-exempt status. By doing so, they forfeited their independence and autonomy (not to mention their spiritual identity and authority) and became nothing more than a state-created non-profit organization. Again, now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Actually, I think it’s time for pastors and churches to decide once and for all to whom they belong and what they are. And if that means losing their precious tax-exempt status, SO BE IT.

For the sake of tax exemption, pastors and churches have stayed mostly silent on virtually every evil contrivance of civil government under the sun. Most of them said nothing when SCOTUS expunged prayer and Bible reading from our schools; most of them said nothing when the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which is almost copied word for word from Adolf Hitler’s gun control act) was passed; most of them said nothing when SCOTUS legalized the murder of unborn babies; most of them said nothing with the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, indefinite detention of American citizens under NDAA was passed, and just recently, when the Republican Congress collaborated with Barack Obama to cast America’s national sovereignty upon the altar of international “free trade” deals. For the sake of tax exemption, the vast, vast majority of today’s pastors and churches are totally silent about almost EVERYTHING.

So, what will America’s pastors and churches do now? What will they do when they must choose between “marrying” same-sex couples and losing tax exemption? If their track record is any indicator, we know what most of them will do: THEY WILL SUBMIT TO CAESAR.

Plus, the SCOTUS decision opens the door for a host of other possibilities. If every consenting adult has an absolute right to enter into civil contracts, how can a State prohibit polygamy? In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Roberts said that the Court’s decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” made the future legalization of polygamy inevitable.  Where does it end?
 

Popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh agrees with Justice Roberts. Read Rush’s analysis here:
 

Rush Limbaugh: Here's What's Next For Marriages
 

And if a State must recognize polygamous “marriages,” what’s next? Where will it end?

And there is one more thing that almost no one is willing to talk about: what is at stake here is the national acceptance of sexual perversion. The SCOTUS decision lends national approbation to an act that our Creator has condemned with the strongest language. (See Romans chapter one.) It has lent national approbation to an act that Western Civilization has always (rightly) regarded as deviant.

Understand this: once any society universally embraces and promotes the sodomite lifestyle, there is no going back. One cannot find a single civilization in history that has survived once homosexuality has become a driving, dominant force over it. It is both a divine and Natural Law. There is a huge difference between recognizing the civil rights of individuals to live immorally (that is a personal matter between the individual and God) and forcing society as a whole to grant societal acceptance and recognition to the immoral act. To quote Rand Paul again: “The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.” Yet, that is exactly what the Supreme Court has done.

But, once again, the fault is the Church. The Church has refused to be the moral leader of the country. Things like homosexuality are too “controversial” for most pulpits. It is a forbidden subject. And too many churches that have been willing to address the issue have done so with such a lack of love and compassion as to do more harm than good. To not speak the truth is bad; to not speak the truth in love is worse.

And dare I say that many of our Christian churches, schools, colleges, and universities have become breeding grounds for homosexual behavior. The absence of male leadership is epidemic in the Church--and in the home, for that matter. And by leadership, I do not mean dictatorship. But true, godly, strong, kind, loving male leadership has eroded significantly from twentieth, and now twenty-first, century churches.

The Church is the moral rudder of a nation. The SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” is the result of the Church abandoning its moral leadership. The Church surrendered its spiritual and moral authority to the state. Why should it now be surprised when the state chooses to not recognize a moral authority that the Church, itself, refuses to recognize?

P.S. In honor of Independence Day, we are again offering THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. This is a giant compilation of over 50 of America’s greatest documents in one volume. THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS cannot be found in stores or anywhere else. And this is a limited printing, so our supply will not last long.

Speaking of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, he has a copy of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, as does former congressman Ron Paul.

So, don’t just shoot off fireworks, give your children and loved ones the documents that birthed the greatest free nation on earth, and let them read the stirring words of our forebears for themselves. Unfortunately, most schools--even private and Christian schools--do not require the reading of these wonderful documents. How much longer before these documents are completely forgotten, or even banned?

Again, this is a limited printing, so order THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS now.

To order THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go here:

The Freedom Documents

And to read a more detailed description of THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS, go here:

A Great Way To Celebrate Independence Day