Tag Archives: definition
But this is what happens when you remove the clear definition of what a family is and is not. While the secular culture would quickly say that the definition of family is a “man-made” construct that can be altered. Christians would confess that God established the family and the definition of what construes a family is not alterable, similar to the definition of marriage. Yet man, is his defiance and rebellion against God is seeking to reverse and undo all that God has established. But by doing so, man will create greater trouble, confusion, and harm to people.
Gay people want Christians to bake cakes celebrating their same-sex weddings. Christians want the right to respectfully decline in order to adhere to their religious convictions. Gay people want to sue Christians for refusing saying that it is “discriminatory,” and that business owners should not be allowed to refuse any customers.
Now, what happens when a gay bakery is asked to bake a cake celebrating traditional marriage?
Such a scenario, until now, has been nothing but speculation. Many of us have wondered out loud about this scenario saying that we suspect a gay baker would refuse and the story would be ignored. To this point the tolerance often demanded by many homosexuals is rarely extended to others. The double standards many activists employ is hard to fathom.
Theodore Shoebat decided to turn the tables and see what would happen if he asked gay bakers to bake him a cake with the message “Gay Marriage is Wrong” on it. The videos that follow chronicle his encounters with 13 gay bakers. To say the least, the tolerance many homosexuals demand is not afforded to Shoebat in his request. He writes of his experience:
A surprise decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the traditional definition of marriage in the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. State bans against same-sex marriage were previously ruled unconstitutional by lower courts, setting up the decision by the Sixth Circuit.
This decision is not only a surprise to advocates of same-sex “marriage,” but is also surprising to traditional marriage advocates that have watched marriage bans struck down by numerous Appeal Court decision around the country. What is not a surprise though is that this decision by the Sixth Circuit all but guarantees that marriage will once again come before the Supreme Court. There is a very real possibility that by next summer a Supreme Court decision on the definition of marriage could be reached.
What is marriage?
That appears on the surface to be an easy question to answer. Perhaps you already have a clearly defined answer at the ready to share with anyone that might ask.
But if we go deeper in this discussion we will inevitably arrive at the root question of “where did your definition of marriage originate?”
Did you get your definition of marriage from your parents? Maybe it came from your church? Perhaps it comes from your understanding of social order and function. Regardless of where it came from we can be certain that our definition of marriage is influenced by its source.
A story not quite as well-known as the baker from Colorado is the one of the Klein’s, bakers from Oregon. These Christian bakers found themselves in the middle of a national controversy for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. In doing so they garnered the wrath of the state which found them guilty of violating anti-discrimination laws. The penalty for adhering to their religious convictions has been the loss of their shop, legal fees, and the possibility of a massive fine that could bankrupt them.
The Klein’s closed their successful bakery in 2013 in the face of legal issues surrounding their case. They decided to operate out of their home in order to be able to do business according to their religious convictions. But this family of 7 is facing bankruptcy as a result of a possible $150,000 fine from the state.
But now, an unlikely ally is coming to their aid and seeking to raise enough money to erase any fines and ensure the family business continues.
That ally is a gay man.
To say that the 2014 mid-term elections were historic is an understatement. The first black senator from the south since reconstruction was elected when Sen. Tim Scott won his race in South Carolina. The first black, female, conservative woman was sent to Congress when Mia Love won her race in Utah.
Blue states such as Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts, elected Republican governors.
West Virginia sent its first-ever woman to Congress – and she’s a Republican!
The GOP made gains in the House of Representatives, giving them their largest majority since World War 2.
And the GOP took control of the Senate, firing both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi from their speaker positions.
President Obama made the statement that his policies were on the ballot during this election. He said America would voting on his policies and leadership of our country at the polls on Tuesday.
America has spoken. America has soundly, loudly rejected the policies of President Obama and sent a clear message that we do not support his agenda. It’s a message that continues to ripple across the country.
But what does this historic win for conservatives mean for the Republican Party and for America?
Some say Christians, and the church, are out of touch and “behind the times” regarding sexuality and marriage. They want us to “get with the program” and accept homosexual behavior and marriage redefinition.
While some have acquiesced to the demands of those seeking to redefine marriage by voicing their acceptance for homosexual behavior and marriage redefinition, that is no longer good enough. The demand now is that Christians and churches support, affirm, and cheerfully endorse such behavior. The idea of tolerance, once a pillar of the LGBT movement, has been demolished, replaced by verbal affirmation and celebration.
These demands are being made by people who believe it’s no big deal for the church to simply change centuries of doctrinal convictions. Furthermore, they would have us reject the plain text teaching of the Bible in favor of their culturally imposed position. Is such change even possible?
There’s a new group seeking to change evangelicals’ minds about the definition of marriage. It’s not a LGBT activist group or even a “liberal” same-sex “marriage” group. It’s a…evangelical group?
The group calling itself “Evangelicals for Marriage Equality” wants to start a “new evangelical conversation about civil marriage equality,” according to a recent ad by the group.
I’m not sure what is wrong with the old conversation, but, based on what I’ve seen so far from the group, the new conversation isn’t worth having.
The group’s spokesman said that the intent of EME is to show that Christians can be faithful to Scripture while supporting civil marriage equality.
So here we are, reading the news that yet another judge has struck down another voter-approved marriage protection amendment. This time both Virginia and Florida watched as judges simply tossed the voters’ voice aside and decided for the entire state what the definition of marriage will be. And the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, another group of judges, has decided that Oklahoma’s marriage protection amendment is unconstitutional struck it down.
That’s three more traditionally conservative states where LGBT activists and politicians alike had little chance of getting a voter-approved measure legalizing gay “marriage” past the people. So, they circumvented the people, trampled both the Constitution and the voter-approved marriage protection amendments, and forced their will on the entire state.
This is part 2 of my commentary on the the forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich and the “new fascism” that is the LGBT movement. Part 1 is here.
Even calm voices such as Dennis Prager is alarmed by the actions of Mozilla. In a recent blog for WND Prager actually told people to uninstall Firefox and boycott Mozilla entirely – something he has never done in his career. Prager warned America that the issue of totalitarianism is the most pressing issue in America right now and must be fought by lovers of liberty. He wrote:
“Worldwide…every genocidal totalitarian regime of the 20th century was leftist. And domestically, too, the left has much less interest in liberty than in forcing people to act in accord with its values. A totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA. How you think matters and what you do away outside of work matters: More than 20 states prohibit judges from being leaders in the Boy Scouts – because the left deems the Boy Scouts homophobic.”
Prager is right and that is a frightening thought. At this moment the left is not seeking rights and equality for everyone, the left is seeking conformity by everyone. This matters for two reasons: