Now for another point of view that the media are ignoring

Since the vast majority of the mainstream media ignored any principled opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling making gay marriage an inalienable right, I reached out to get some comments to balance the scale of journalistic coverage.

The Nevada Concerned Citizens — whose director is Richard Ziser, the man who spearheaded the petition drive that led to the voters amending the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage — released this statement:

As Christians, we are committed to Biblical faith and ethics. As a result, this body of believers stands on the authority of Scripture and God’s Truth as central to our lives.

What the Bible says about marriage is clear, definitive and unchanging. We affirm biblical, traditional, natural marriage as the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. The Scriptures’ teaching on marriage is not negotiable. We stake our lives upon the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Consequently, we will not accept, nor adhere to, the legal redefinition of marriage issued by the United States Supreme Court. We will not recognize same-sex “marriages;” our churches will not host same-sex ceremonies, and we will not perform such ceremonies.

While we affirm our love for all people, including those struggling with same-sex attractions or confused about their biological identity as male or female, we cannot and will not affirm the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior or any other behavior that deviates from God’s design for males and females made in His image, including His plan for marriage.

We believe religious freedom is at stake with this Supreme Court decision. Consequently, we join together to support those who stand for natural marriage in the corporate world, the marketplace, education, entertainment, media and elsewhere with our prayers, influence, and resources.

Our first duty is to love and obey God, not man. Therefore, we strongly encourage all pastors, leaders, educators, and churches to openly reject this court mandated legal redefinition of marriage and to use their influence to affirm God’s design.

“The Lord Jesus affirmed that design by quoting Genesis: “[F]rom the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘ For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mark 10:6-9). Jesus later said: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Mark 13:31). We stake our very lives and future on the Truth of God’s Word.”

Ziser released this statement on his own behalf:

Religious Freedom as we know it in this country is in jeopardy.  Our conservative and libertarian friends should be afraid, very afraid of what the Court has done to our constitution and the institution of marriage.  We now are fully entrenched in a post-modern era … where relativism reigns. Tolerance of the Biblical view of marriage will no longer be tolerated.

That was the view taken by Kelly Shackelford and Ken Blackwell in an op-ed in Investor’s Business Daily. They noted that bakers and florist of faith who decline to provide services for gay marriages already face potential bankruptcy and loss of their homes.

“Their legal rights are no different from Hobby Lobby’s to refuse to cover abortion under ObamaCare,” they write. “Whether from a state or federal RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) or the Constitution’s First Amendment, all Americans have the right to believe what their faith teaches and live according to those beliefs. This freedom is for Christians, Jews and peaceful adherents of all faiths.”

Now, return to the mainstream media for the paeans of praise for the five high-minded justices.

Advertisements

46 comments on “Now for another point of view that the media are ignoring

  1. nyp says:

    This weekend I am really not very worried about the poor old anti-gay florist.
    As for the minister, if he thinks that same-sex marriage is a sin, I recommend that he not marry a dude. Nothing in last week’s Supreme Court decision will force him to marry a dude. He simply can’t write bigoted laws that impinge on other people’s freedom to marry.

  2. iShrug says:

    It might be legal to have an abortion, too. But don’t try to make me drive someone to the clinic.

  3. nyp says:

    If you drive a taxi or a bus I have no problem requiring you to drive your fare to the clinic.

  4. Steve says:

    Uber should be required to take armed fares.

  5. So Richard Ziser wants to reinstate ancient religious prejudices, in the place of Constitutional civil law? Does he want to reinstate forced child marriages, stoning of people who eat the “wrong” food, coerced prayer in schools, animal sacrifice, suppression of thought and press, genocide, inquisitions, religious wars, etc.? These, after all, were justified by the Bible that civilized people and nations have been undoing for the past 6 centuries–fortunately for all of us. Before he tries to reimpose HIS beloved traditions on the rest of us, let him live a year in Saudi Arabia or just watch the movie “Timbuktu”, if he can sit through it. Out of curiosity I wonder how many centuries he would have us go back?

  6. Ed…I thought you were a devout Mormon and a gay man as well…your rant is a bit puzzling as such.

  7. The free exercise of one’s religious beliefs are specifically enumerated in the first amendment. Same sex marriage (as well as abortion) appear NOWHERE in the constitution NOR the bill of rights. This is what happens when you legislate from the bench…inspired by the shadows and whispers of the penumbra of the constitution, or for those of you in Pahrump…when they make it up out of whole cloth.

  8. nyp says:

    I don’t see anything about desegregation in the constitutionor the bill or rights, either. Or about a right to miscegenation. Or about protection against gender discrimination.

    Perhaps I’m not looking hard enough.

  9. Or discrimination against polygamists…as you seem to be in favor of?

  10. nyp says:

    there are well-founded policy reasons for prohibiting polygamy. There are no such reasons for prohibiting intermarriage among races or religious groups or for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

  11. As I stated before…the little nypper is a bigot when it comes to the rights of polygamists who just want marriage equality like all of his little other friends.

  12. nyp says:

    pro tip: if you have been reduced to arguing that prohibiting discrimination against gay people is no different than prohibiting bigamy, you are losing the argument.

  13. common sense tip: It’s painfully obvious that you really have no problem with discrimination and being bigoted…whose ox is being gored is apparently your only concern.

  14. Rincon says:

    Other than keeping the Christians happy, why were we prohibiting gay marriage in the first place? What problems will this ruling create? This isn’t my argument. I just don’t have enough information on that.

    “…we cannot and will not affirm the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior or any other behavior that deviates from God’s design for males and females made in His image, including His plan for marriage.” OK by me, but why don’t these hypocrites devote equal energy to condemning divorced people who remarry, which is also forbidden by the Bible?

    “…bakers and florist of faith who decline to provide services for gay marriages already face potential bankruptcy and loss of their homes.” I don’t believe this ruling affects the rights of people to discriminate against gays. Am I right or wrong about this?

  15. Rincon says:

    Thank you Winston. Your link to the Blaze validates my position. Although the article title says gay marriage hurts him personally, he rambled only in vague generalities. A sample: “Marriage is a certain thing with a certain nature and definition. When the State mandates that the thing is something other than what it is, and has a purpose other than its actual purpose, you are now living under a tyranny of confusion.” Huh? I think this guy needs help.

    Although he squirmed mightily, He couldn’t come up with anything meaningful.

  16. Steve says:

    Time for more regulations and larger government to “permit” people to do things, Nyp. (Don’t say I didn’t tell you so)

    http://www.newser.com/story/209195/polygamous-trio-may-sue-for-right-to-marry.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=earthlink&utm_campaign=rss_topnews

  17. nyp says:

    there is no consitutional bar to laws prohibiting polygamy.

  18. Steve says:

    Double negative’s are poor grammar.

    For today’s second amendment moment we bring local news to the forefront!
    (because, as usual, national news pretends these things don’t happen)
    AND THIS is a follow up, no less!
    http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/details-emerge-northeast-las-vegas-home-invasion-shootout

  19. Winston Smith says:

    Steve, how dare you propose that it’s OK to defend your life, family and property with a personal firearm. Do you think the world is some sort of cowboy movie?

  20. Steve says:

    Works even better when the crooks run away at the mere sight of their quarry brandishing a loaded security six!

    These episodes happen far more often then any other incidents involving guns. But the control freaks don’t want anyone compiling those stats!

  21. Rincon says:

    So why is it important for government to step upon individual freedom by prohibiting polygamy? Is the cost of polygamy to society so great that the government should dictate peoples’ choice of lifestyle? You’re advocating big government I say!

  22. Steve says:

    Not me…nyp.

    nyp is the one playing games with who is “permitted” to marry. Nyp is all aghast that polygamists are even in existence and appears to believe the government should wipe the practice off the face of the earth.

  23. nyp says:

    I am not aghast at anything. But polygamous marriage is not legal and is not a constitutional right, not should it be.

  24. Rincon says:

    So Steve, are you in support of the present prohibition against polygamy or not?

  25. Rincon says:

    Sorry Steve. Poorly phrased. Let me try again: Do you feel government has the right to prohibit polygamy or not?

  26. Steve says:

    I have stated it over and over. Government authority (in this context) is to ensure the contract of marriage is upheld.
    Government has no authority to “permit” or to prohibit or to define who may marry in any way shape or form.

    This is the purview of religion and is a moral issue…government cannot, nor should it even try to, legislate morality.

  27. Steve says:

    You can see the hypocrisy from nyp…gay is good but anything else…..no effin way. Nyp (by his definition of conservatism) is a future conservative.

  28. Rincon says:

    Since you say, “Government has no authority to “permit” or to prohibit or to define who may marry in any way shape or form”, then you agree that government has no right to prohibit polygamy.

    Since you say it is a religious issue, then am I correct to assume that government should not have the right to deny, or perhaps even issue a license?

    “Government authority (in this context) is to ensure the contract of marriage is upheld.” Therefore, if a group of gays could arrange a church sanctioned marriage, then it would be government’s role to “ensure the contract of marriage is upheld”, correct? Gaychurch.org seems to suggest that they do have the potential of sanctioning gay marriages. It then follows that government should “ensure the contract of marriage is upheld” for gays who marry. Presumably, the same would apply to polygamists?

  29. Steve says:

    You REALLY want to spin what I said.

    I don’t care who marry’s who. The government has no say over what church is formed.
    In this context it has only one function…to ensure the contract of marriage is upheld.

  30. Steve says:

    Here I am linking to Steve Sebelius twitter feed.
    (The mayor of NYC apparently wants to ban smoking in private apartments, but this applies pretty well to this line of discussion.)
    He posted the following on that topic.
    “He’s got some good ideas, but like many liberals, he thinks he knows what’s better for you and wants to force compliance.”

    Steve Sebelius is a liberal Democrat who writes for the RJ…Tom Mitchell and Steve Sebelius have a harsh “relationship” ;from working for decades at the same paper; if that is even close to a description of their connection.

  31. Rincon says:

    The question marks in my post were genuine. I was asking if I had it right. I thought we might agree in some way. What spin? If you disagree with all of it, just say so. If you agree with parts of it, just say so as well. I’m not into puzzles.

  32. nyp says:

    do you work in a smoke-free office? I do, thank goodness.

  33. Steve says:

    Can’t make it any clearer, Rincon.

  34. Rincon says:

    Just like a politician at a press conference Steve. Clear as mud.

  35. Steve says:

    Allow me to re—–iterate;
    “I don’t care who marry’s who. The government has no say over what church is formed.
    In this context it has only one function…to ensure the contract of marriage is upheld.”

    Seems about as clear as one can be.

  36. Rincon says:

    Therefore, if a group of gays could arrange a church sanctioned marriage, then it would be government’s role to ensure the contract of marriage is upheld. The same would apply to polygamists. I believe we agree.

  37. Steve says:

    ” if a group of gays could arrange a church sanctioned marriage, then it would be government’s role to ensure the contract of marriage is upheld. The same would apply to polygamists.”

    Exctly…and that key word “if” is important. Not only does the government have no authority to say who marry’s it also has no authority to force or order other people to marry them.

  38. Rincon says:

    You must be very smart because we agree! Now to toss in another variable. How about a pair of gay or polygamous atheists?

  39. Steve says:

    How about no government authority to force someone to manufacture party favors for them?

  40. Rincon says:

    Agreed. Now, should they be able to marry or not?

  41. Steve says:

    Since you insist;
    Allow me to re—–iterate;
    “I don’t care who marry’s who. The government has no say over what church is formed.
    In this context it has only one function…to ensure the contract of marriage is upheld.”

    Seems about as clear as one can be.

  42. Rincon says:

    A simple yes or no would have been more succinct – and 100% clear..

  43. Steve says:

    An acknowledgment that my oft repeated statement stands on its own would have been even simpler.

  44. Anonymous says:

    Marriage: 1) The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

    “I don’t care who marry’s who. The government has no say over what church is formed.
    In this context it has only one function…to ensure the contract of marriage is upheld.” So atheist gay couples can marry in your opinion if they create some sort of “church” to recognize the marriage, correct?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s