By Joe Newby
While appearing on the May 11 edition of CRN’s “Talkback with Chuck Wilder,” Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of Eagle Forum and a nationally-recognized leader of the conservative pro-family movement, said the goal of gay marriage is the ultimate destruction of the Christian religion, CNS News reported.
“Have you noticed that only Christian small-business people have been harassed and sued for refusing to participate in same-sex marriages, even though our fast-growing immigrant populations — you know of Muslims, Hindus and other faiths — are also opposed to that concept?” the host asked.
“The use of same-sex marriage to attack Christian businesses but not businesses run by members of other religions demonstrates what is really driving the demand for the new constitutional right to same-sex marriage,” he added. “And Phyllis, give them the bottom line. What is that bottom line?”
“Well, that is right,” she said in response. “They want to wipe out the Christian religion.”
Throughout history, she said, marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman. Even the ancient Greeks, she said, did not approve of gay marriage.
“Now we’re gonna let the judges change that?” she asked. “What kind of a country do we live in? I mean, it’s really just an outrage.”
She also noted that not every decision by the Supreme Court is worth supporting – like the now-infamous Dred Scott case. Moreover, she added, Americans simply shouldn’t accept the court as being the final arbiter of what is right and wrong.
“There’s this thing about the American people that they think if the Supreme Court speaks, that we all have to bow down and accept it,” Schlafly observed. “We shouldn’t accept it when it’s wrong.”
Schlafly, however, wasn’t finished.
“And most of the other religions do not recognize same-sex marriage,” she added. “I assume there are some Muslim bakers and photographers and other people who have been harassed, but they’re not being attacked and they’re not being criticized.”
Schlafly has a good point.
In early April, Steven Crowder posted a video illustrating what happened to him when he posed as a gay man shopping for a wedding cake. Crowder, needless to say, didn’t get his cake.
“What do you think happens when a gay, like SUPER gay Crowder tries to get a super gay wedding cake baked at a Muslim bakery? I’m pretty sure you can guess, but you might as well watch this week’s adventure to Dearborn, MI to find out,” he said.
Strangely enough, no one in the gay community appeared upset. And to no one’s surprise, the baker wasn’t charged with violating any anti-discrimination notices, and there have been no reports of death threats.
Could it be that only Christians are targeted with such action? Crowder said that while many of the Muslim bakers he approached were willing to serve him, many were not.
“I’m not even saying these Muslim bakeries shouldn’t have a right to do whatever they did — they absolutely should — and many more of them would than Christian bakeries,” he said, according to an article at the Washington Times, which noted:
His video makes a point that has long rankled the right: That Christian-owned shops have been targeted for legal action and derision for refusing to serve same-sex weddings even as gay-rights activists and media outlets ignore business owners of other faiths known for their conservative social views, notably Islam.
“Waiting for the militant progressive supporters of gay wedding cake to start threatening and protesting these Muslim ran bakeries,” conservative radio talk show host Dana Loesch said on Facebook. “I think we will be waiting a long time.”
Schlafly isn’t the only one who believes Christianity is the real target. Apprearing on James Dobson’s radio program in April, former National Organization for Marriage president Maggie Gallagher said the court could create a climate in which Christians will become a persecuted minority.
“Christianity in this country is going to enter a new phase where we are a hated minority group,” she said, “and I think we had better be psychologically and spiritually prepared for that and be prepared to rebuild from the ruins of the collapse of civilization that we’re witnessing. At least one civilization is over with and what the next phase of American civilization will be is yet to be determined.”
Frank Wolf, a retired member of the House of Representatives who currently serves as a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative and Wilson Chair of Religious Freedom at Baylor University, wondered: “Is prison the fate of people today who dare to stand up for what their conscience, informed by their faith, dictates?”
Speaking at Harvard University earlier this month, he quoted the Manhattan Declaration’s implied promise of civil disobedience in response to religious conscience violations: “I will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will I render to Caesar what is God’s.”
Oh crap… The cats outta of the bag… how did they ever figure out its all part of the gay agenda 🙂
Smile Joe… it’s all in fun -plus it’s a beautiful day outside, hope you enjoy it!
P.S. why is Tracy the author of this post?
Joe’s the author, technical error, fixed!
Equal pressure on businesses that hold such positions on business services provided. I think that’s a fair question to ask? If it was a racial potential bias we would be discussing it. If Christians are claiming persecution or lopsided legal bias, it’s a probably a good thing to discuss on a site dedicated to faith and values. If the legal lens turns to other groups it would provoke response too.
How are Christians going to be a minority in America? Millions upon millions would have to flee the country. This is some serious Chicken Little stuff.
agreed
You obviously have little appreciation of history. Numbers alone do not determine the marginalization of one part of society. The initial number of Nazis compared to the number of Jews is but one example.
But numbers do matter. Just ask American religious minorities today.
Neal, you are willfully ignorant.
That’s fine to say, but I wish you would expand on it a bit. How so?
“Christians” face disproportionate pressure because we enjoy disproportionate privelege; those claiming to speak on behalf of Christ have spent centuries accumulating political power and cultivating legitimate resentment, and these chickens are now coming home to roost. That said, while we are *morally* correct in requiring more of those who profess to be Christian, we are not *legally* correct in doing so. The law must apply to all, must protect each from every, or else it is not the law.
Facts are the essence of soundness in a logical argument.
“Throughout history, (Phyllis Schlafly) said, marriage has been defined as being between
a man and a woman. Even the ancient Greeks, she said, did not approve
of gay marriage.”
While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being
granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by
mixed-sexed couples, there is some history of recorded same-sex unions
around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.
A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]
Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[6]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[7] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[8]
An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian.
While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and
was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious
ceremony binding the couple.[9]
Neill, James (2009). The origins and role of same-sex relations in human societies. McFarland & Company. p. 267. ISBN 978-0-7864-3513-5.
Lahey, Kathleen A., Kevin Alderson. Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political. Insomniac Press, 2000. ISBN 1-894663-63-2 / 978-1894663632
Dynes, Wayne R. and Stephen Donaldson. 1992. Homosexuality in the Ancient World. New York, NY: Garland.
Hinsch, Bret (1990). Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China. Reed Business Information, Inc. ISBN 0-520-07869-1.
Kuefler, Mathew (2007). “The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law”. Journal of Family History 32 (4): 343–370. doi:10.1177/0363199007304424.
Bullough, Vern L. (1976). Sexual variance in society and history. New York: Wiley. p. 53. ISBN 9780471120803.
The origins and role of same-sex relations in human societies, James Neill, McFarland (5 January 2009)
Hinsch, Bret (1990). Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China. Reed Business Information. ISBN 0-520-07869-1.
Hinsch, Bret. (1990). Passions of the Cut Sleeve. University of California Press. pp. 24–25
“Facts are the essence of soundness in a logical argument.”
I agree. Find me one person out of the seven billion plus on the planet (let alone the billions that are already dead) that was the result of anything but the sexual union of one man and one woman, and you would have an argument for the redefinition of marriage. The fact that some people deviated from the logical model doesn’t really make much of a case, especially when anthropologists like JD Unwin recognised that societies that did either declined or died out altogether within a generation.
A strict sexual ethic based on heterosexual monogamy for life is critical for any healthy society. Marriage is a simple recognition of the basic facts of sexual identity in human beings.
Non-heterosexual and/or non-monogamous behavior in animals and people is SO not a new thing. And social mores and taboos affect what aspects of themselves people feel they can safely show. Maybe what seems like some halcyon history of wholesome heterosexual monogamy is really millennia of oppression.
Using animals as a basis for human behaviour is idiotic. Some animals eat their young, some eat faeces, very few of them can act in a way to heal those who are sick, so they usually leave them to die. Furthermore, given the sheer number of species in the world (about 3 million I believe) I’m not very impressed by a few hundred examples that are usually extremely dubious (such as dogs rubbing against posts etc.)
I don’t find that argument that homosexuality is ‘natural’ remotely convincing, and yes, I do still believe we should follow the evidence from nature based on HUMAN consequences – because only that is actually relevant.
What consequences are you talking about?
Good response, but you need to get more technical if your really gonna crack open Neals argument. So lets hit this on the head, putting religion aside and beating up the gaystapo with their own weapons, science. FACT 1. Oh yes there are not hundreds, but thousands of examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom…….oh wait but there is NOT, what you have is a noticeable percentage of certain animals and certain species that engage in BI-SEXUALITY. Quick explanation and FACT 2. In NO animal species, (here is the key) marked with a strong and diverse sexual population (IE plenty of fish in the sea, so to speak 😉 ) do you have ANY examples of members of one sex, male or female, CHOOSING to permanently shun sexually viable members of the opposite sex for members of their own. Lots of PSYCHOLOGICAL factors, not biological are the cause of homosexual acts in the animal kingdom, really bisexual since it is most often males engaging in such behavior and at some point, given the opportunity, they will end up attempting to mate with a female, should the chance arise.
Yeah, I agree, but spending more time than necessary is boring to me now. Most of these activists get one or two responses from me. You can tell honest seekers, they are few and far between, and Neal isn’t one of them.
What would make me an honest seeker?
“Gaystapo”? Seriously? Please say that in person to a holocaust survivor. Like my grandmother, for example.
Do you really think marriage equality will cause American society to die out?
Number 1. It’s only marriage ‘equality’ when the definition is one man and one woman, since anyone can participate. Pretending that two men or two women are the same combination is dishonest.
More accurately, it’s fake marriage that is forced on everybody by law. The truth is that one man and one woman is true marriage equality. The slogan the activists use is inaccurate.
Number 2. Read up on JD Unwin. He was an anthropologist who expected to find that societies prospered when sexual morality was relaxed. He found the opposite without exception. He was forced to change his mind because the evidence could not support his initial theory even a little. What about you? Would you be prepared to change your mind if the evidence was all in one direction and not at all in the other?
To me it’s just common sense. Any and every society is made up of people, so geography, language, culture, climate are all bypassed by core social structures. It matters if those structures work or fail. The best environment cannot protect a society from social failure and some of the worst environments can be overcome if social connections are strong. Marriage is at the centre of all relationships, so if you mess with it, you are signing your own death warrant as a civilisation. The fact it takes 50 to 100 years to manifest itself doesn’t make it any less true.
How does Unwin account for China? One of China’s longest golden ages was on the back of a 400 year dynasty where all the emperors had male spouses.
So, do you think that infertile couples shouldn’t be allowed to “marry”?
So, what name do we give that unique combination that has the potential to reproduce instead, if you are going to co-opt marriage?
That doesn’t answer my question.
Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply.
The fact that there are over seven billion people on earth and the number continues to grow, strongly suggest that procreation is alive and well.
10% of the population getting married and not procreating appears to offer no threat of extinction of the human race or to the decline and fall of civilization now or historically. (despite JD Unwin see below) Plus many gays couple adopt and raise very well adjusted children that might other wise not have been adopted.
As for heterosexual marriage being critical for a healthy society:
We do not have to look far from home to find same-sex marriages. Before the arrival of Europeans in North America, many Native American groups acknowledged a third gender – two-spirits people – and their marriages.
Two-spirits people were found in more than 100 Native American
cultures – including the Iroquois, Navajo, and Crow – throughout what is
now the continental United States. Rather than being classified as
either female or male, two-spirits people were regarded as a distinct
third gender. Although there was individual variation, typically,
biologically male two-spirits dressed in women’s clothes and engaged in
women’s work. Likewise, a biologically female two-spirits would often
dress in male clothing, carry weapons, and hunt.
Two-spirits people were usually thought to be spirituality gifted,
and they took on special roles in several cultures. For instance, among
the Teton Dakota, they handled naming rituals and worked as diviners.
Societal acceptance of two-spirits people included the right to marry
individuals who shared their biological sex. Among the Hidatsa,
two-spirits could also complete their families by adopting children.
These two-spirits households were often prosperous. Because of their
important roles in rituals, and because they were thought to be
particularly gifted craftspeople, two-spirits had many opportunities to
acquire wealth and status.
It wasn’t until the arrival of European colonialists that the
two-spirits people came to be viewed in a negative light. Native
Americans were pressured to discontinue the tradition that colonialists
viewed as shameful. The number of individuals identifying as two-spirits
people dramatically decreased, and they eventually lost their formal
recognition.
Heterosexual marriage is not the only form of marriage that has been
recognized in the last millennium. To the contrary, during the last few
hundred years, there was a thriving same-sex marital practice in the
very land in which you and I live.
She is correct. As long as Christians remain passive, we will suffer at the hands of sinners. Rise up, form into militias, and take this Republic back. The minority is kicking our behinds. Its time for the majority to act. Tar and feather was a good idea back in the day, and it is a good solution short of war today.
So much hatred
So much blind irrational hatred.
The only good service it provides is that it is finally coming into the light of day.
In my line of work I find that too often we fall into our little cocoons of friends and family who think, either positively or negatively as we do, and we are sheltered from what reality really is. There is much work to be done, through education, in order for society to evolve beyond blind irrational hatred.
No one (or god) will do it for us and it is not going to just go away if we ignore it. In fact it spreads.
There is a way we wish things were and then there is how things really are; and combating hatred by exposing it for what it is, educating the newer generations with better choices, and setting examples is one of the best ways to create change.
But first, we need to continue educating ourselves.
Please comment more often stear1… I like how succinct and poignant your comments are 🙂
Cheers!
Sarcasm? Can’t tell.
hahaha ,You are welcomed to try but I dont think that God is going to allow it .You are deluding yourself to think that you can destroy what greater powers on earth have been trying to destroy for 2000 years already .But you wont and you may not survive the attempt .I am going to sit back and enjoy the show as God lights your a up .hahahaha
Edward, to whom is your comment directed? Are you saying that you will be pleased when God kills someone? Please clarify. Spokane FAVs stands for positive interfaith dialogue, so please limit your comments to making positive claims about your beliefs, rather than making negative claims about others.
comment deleted. Thanks for pointing it out Jan.
Jan, some comments deserve a critical comment, such as any that would deny human dignity to any group for no reason, ie, to a group who do not harm others. I believe there is a difference between reasonable or respectful criticism and negative comments. Would you make such a distinction, or such a delimitation to “Making negative claims”?
Tom,
Edward made a comment to the effect that he will be glad when God kills us all. That was the comment I objected to, and Admin removed.
I for one would like us all to live. Just sayin’.
No wonder you people think that you are winning .Deleting comments that oppose your views is not winning .hahahaha
Edward, the comment was deleted because it was perceived as violent, not because it opposed anyone’s views
Schlfley’s ability to whittle reality down to her own Kulturkampf frame is nothing new, such as her having enthusiastically extolled the “science” lectures of wingnut (and currently incarcerated) tax scofflaw Kent Hovind (a tale I recount in TIP 1.7 at http://www.tortucan.wordpress.com). Christianity is in no more peril than any religion favored by so large a block could be, though the ability of some of its members to invoke religious freedom as an excuse for descriminating while doing business with the public is another matter. Time, the law, & the market will weigh in on the social outcome in the world outside Schlafley’s stoutly padlocked conceptual fence.