If there has been one constant in the last few years it has been the media/left rushing to quote Pope Francis on the subject of migration, on wealth and, out of context, on our duties to our fellow man who happens to be gay.
Abortion is the “white glove” equivalent of the Nazi eugenics programme, Pope Francis has said.
In off-the-cuff remarks to members of an Italian family association reported by the Associated Press, the Pope said he regretted that some couples decided not to have children or opted for pre-natal tests to discover if their unborn child had any physical defects.
“The first proposal in such a case is, ‘Do we get rid of it?’” Francis said. “The murder of children. To have an easy life, they get rid of an innocent.”
The Pope said that in his youth he had been shocked by stories about children in the past being “thrown from the mountain” if they were born with disabilities.
“Today we do the same thing,” he said, according to AP.
“Last century, the whole world was scandalised by what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today, we do the same thing but with white gloves,” Francis said.
The pope also rejected the concept of nontraditional families not based on heterosexual marriage.
“Today—it hurts to say it—one speaks of ‘diversified’ families: different types of family …but the human family as the image of God, man and woman, is only one. Only one,” the pope said.
Oddly enough thought the Holy Father said these things several days ago and yet I’ve not hear Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and/or the good folks at CNN & MSNBC to come out and proclaim the necessity to embrace the Holy Father’s teachings on this important moral issues?
One must conclude that as far as the media/left is concerned Francis is not quotable when he states unchanging Catholic doctrine in public in clear, straightforward and un-spinable language.
No word if DePaul or Marquette or any other “Catholic” University will be banning him as a potential speaker for exclusionary language.
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court (thankfully) ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, the baker who declined to be forced to bake and decorate a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding. The ruling was based almost completely on the documented religious hostility of the members of the Civil Rights Commission, and thus there is concern that in the future the Court would allow government to force bakers and other service providers to support same-sex weddings over their religious objections as long as the bureaucrats pretended to be neutral to the baker’s religious views.
There are a few fig leaves in the decision that an optimist could take as good news, such as Justice Kennedy saying “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” and that “government has no role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience based objection is legitimate or illegitimate.” And at least he conceded that “a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion.”
The path to the case, if not necessarily the decision, in Masterpiece Cakeshop, is an easy one to follow. It started back in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas, which found a constitutional right to Liberty as exemplified by homosexual sodomy in that particular case (although Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion explicitly refused to declare that homosexual sodomy itself is a constitutional right). Justice Scalia correctly predicted the path in his dissenting opinion, noting that the decision “leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.”
The next step in the chain was United States v. Windsor in 2012, which ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts both pointed out that this Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion would inevitably lead to the Court declaring same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional right, which of course it did in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 (also authored by Kennedy). This is where Justice Thomas presciently predicted that the decision “threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.” And here we are.
A lot of the analysis of Masterpiece Cakeshop centered around whether baking a custom wedding cake counted as “speech” for the purposes of the Free Speech clause of the first amendment. And was Phillips really discriminating against the gay couple when he offered to sell them anything else in the store, or to create a cake for any other occasion? The answer is obviously “no” and therein, I think, lies the solution to this conundrum.
As I have said before, no one has a right to force someone else to provide a good or service. If Phillips had refused to sell a pre-baked cake to the gay couple, that would have been discriminatory since he had already invested his time and talent to create the cake and it was already available for purchase by the general public. This would be the same as if a gay couple tried to by a photo print from a studio where the photographer was displaying his images for sale. But in either case, the gay couple does not have the right to force the baker or photographer to participate in a gay wedding if the vendor’s religious beliefs prevent him from doing so. So the government could not force the photographer to attend the ceremony, document the event and then produce the images, all of which require him to devote his time and talent to an event that violates his religious views.
This rule would also apply to the Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington case currently being petitioned to the Supreme Court.
If Mrs. Stutzman had refused to sell a floral arrangement available to the general public to a gay customer, she would be guilty of discrimination. But she had sold flowers to the gay couple – whom she considered friends – for years without a problem. It was only when she refused to be forced to design the flowers for their wedding, which involves not only creativity on her part, but also the nuts and bolts of getting the flowers to the ceremony and arranging them there, that she supposedly discriminated against them. Clearly, this is an infringement on her first amendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion.
Justice Kennedy’s reasoning in all of these cases seems to be rooted in the infamous “Sweet Mystery of Life” passage from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which he wrote “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” As Justice Scalia correctly pointed out, this is “the passage that ate the rule of law,” but is nonetheless central to Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence. A person’s religious views, by definition, define his or her “own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
Why is a religious person’s liberty, which is expressly guaranteed by the Constitution, worth less than a gay person’s?
Don’t forget to hit DaTipJar!
Or better yet, subscribe!
[The two priests arrive at the scene of the fight between Sean Thornton & Red Will Danaher]
Father Paul: Father, shouldn’t we put a stop to it now?
Father Lonergan: [Smiling, making fighting movements] Ah, we should lad, yes we should, it’s our duty. Yes, it’s our duty... [Smiles as a punch is heard]
The Quiet Man 1952
4th Doctor: The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views…which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.
Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Pt 4 1977
A long time ago on my radio show I did an hour on the redefinition of marriage and the deficit. This was back in ancient times when Barack Obama had for political reasons not “come out” for gay marriage and thus one could still publicly argue against it the entire media / left defining you as a racist, sexist bigot homophobe for stating facts that had been true for millennia. (For the record I stand by my arguments against gay marriage that I made 10 years ago here)
Now you might think these two topics are as unrelated as you can get but I pointed out on my show that the insistence that there was nothing wrong with redefining marriage opened up huge possibilities for solving the deficit.
All we had to do is redefine what a “deficit” or a “balanced budget” or even “debt” was and viola suddenly deficits would be a thing of the past and we would be able to look forward to balanced budgets for the rest of our days.
The possibilities were endless and the best part of it was people wouldn’t have to vary their spending or borrowing habits one bit and if any person holding a debt objected why they were just not as enlightened as the rest of us.
The entire point of that monologue was to not only point out the insanity of redefining marriage but to also point out that once you decide you can redefine one word for the sake of one’s personal advantage you can redefine another. Or as Kurt Schlichter prophetically put it a few years later
Liberals May Regret Their New Rules
I thought of that when I saw This piece by Stacy McCain about the conflict between lesbians and the Transgender community:
Lesbian feminists are being attacked as “TERFs” (trans exclusive radical feminists) because they don’t want to date men in dresses, nor do they want to cede control of the feminist movement to men in dresses. Transgender activists are insulting lesbians as “vagina fetishists.”
and they just can’t understand why this is happening to them.
In 2018, lesbians are being called “vagina fetishists,” being censored by social media, being targeted & assaulted…and all by people in the so called “LGBTQ.”
WTF is even happening? https://t.co/IukpxvliZa
— Julia Diana Robertson جوليا ديانا (@JuliaDRobertson) May 31, 2018
The answer is in fact very simple. The people who had no problem redefining the word “marriage” to satisfy their own narcissism and then tried to drive those who fought them from the public square (ask yourself why the Catholic Church is no longer allowed to deal with adoptions in Massachusetts) are now shocked Shocked that other narcissists would choose to redefine word “woman” and by extension “lesbian” and bring the same public social and legal opprobrium upon them that they gleefully and self righteously applied to others who dared suggest that words actually mean things.
You see, once one realizes that in one fell swoop by the act of redefining words one can:
satisfy one’s narcissism
turn one’s proclivities into virtue to be celebrated
turn mental illness into courage
and silence one’s enemies by both cultural and legal censure
you’re not like to let simple things like biology or objective reality stop you.
Now Stacy McCain who has been the target of radical feminists and Christophobic folk for daring to take his protestant faith seriously is right when he stand up for those radical feminists, who despise his very existence, on constitutional grounds
By the way, a conservative need not endorse homosexuality to believe that lesbians should not be insulted as “TERFs,” etc. What is at issue here is a matter of basic liberty. The First Amendment, which guarantees both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, likewise safeguards the principle of freedom of association. In guaranteeing “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” our Constitution expresses this principle. A woman who chooses to avoid intimacy with men is exercising her basic liberty and, while we might lament her choice, the friends of liberty cannot in good conscience compel her to do otherwise. Forcing citizens to associate with others against their will is not “social justice.”
The Christian is as free to eschew association with non-believers as the homosexual is free to eschew the companionship of the opposite sex. For decades now, the Left has accused Christian conservatives of seeking to “impose their morality” on others. But what is it that transgender activists are attempting to do now? Aren’t they attempting to compel others to do their bidding, and to silence their critics?
But while I agree with Stacy McCain’s first amendment arguments defending the radical feminists targeted in this effort, applaud Cynthia Yockey’s efforts to make this fight on behalf of her fellow lesbians who refuse to redefine what a lesbian, man or woman is and , as a faithful Catholic have sympathy for folks like Julia Diana Robertson for the abuse she and other feminists, both straight and gay are getting for these actions, I can’t help but think that the shock that radical feminists and lesbians have as they suddenly find themselves victims of the terror they helped unleash must be the same that Maximilien de Robespierre felt just before blade of the guillotine that he had used to eliminate so many “enemies of the revolution” beheaded him.
This is one of the disadvantages of thinking that the lessons of history are all just the ravings of a patriarchal past that have no application for the present, you don’t realize that revolutions always eat their own.
I’m sure there will be a few in the Christian right who will join the fight like Stacy McCain who closes his piece saying;
It is truly astounding to find myself defending lesbian feminists against transgender totalitarians.
Like I keep saying, people need to wake the hell up.
and will will speak up for the like of Ms Robertson and company, but I suspect that the vast majority of Conservative Catholics and Protestants who have spent the last decade being told they are beyond the pale from the likes of them and their allies and have had the full force of both culture and government brought against them will watch their oppressors with Schadenfreude for a while more as this verse from Proverbs comes to pass
Those who trouble their household inherit the wind,
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
And remember the same people “triggered” by this blunt statement of the teaching of the Catholic Church “hate speech” would be triggered by this movie clip too:
Aren’t we so lucky to be ruled by the values of the most narcissistic generation vs the values of the greatest one?
In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court, relying on little more than the majority’s “reasoned judgement” that “liberty” as mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment somehow encompasses the dignity of same-sex couples, created a right to same-sex marriage. As the case was being deliberated, traditional marriage supporters, including me, were concerned that creating such a right would immediately create tension (to say the least) between this newly-created right and the right to Religious Freedom and Freedom of Speech. In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts correctly pointed out that “Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution.” In a separate dissent, Justice Thomas elaborated on what Religious Liberty actually means, pointing out that it “is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.” In an apparent attempt to mollify the dissenters, Justice Kennedy explicitly stated in his majority opinion that “Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.” Unfortunately, the LGBT community has done nothing but disparage us and our beliefs since.
Fast-forward two years and we’re back at the Supreme Court for Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the case where a same-sex couple sued a Christian baker to force him to create a custom cake to celebrate their “wedding.” The baker, Jack Philips, declined to create a custom cake, but offered to sell them anything else in the store. Naturally, the couple cried “discrimination” to the Commission who claimed that Philips not only had to use his creativity and talent to create a cake to celebrate an event to which he was morally opposed, but also had to teach his staff, including members of his family, that his religious beliefs about marriage were discriminatory. The Commission’s ruling blatantly violated both Philips’ right to freely exercise his religion and his freedom of speech, and eventually led to oral arguments at the Supreme Court last week.
I’ve read the transcript of the oral arguments, and while I’m optimistic that Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, along with the Chief Justice, will rule in favor of Philips, I’m a bit concerned that the ruling may be too narrow to fully protect religious liberty against the same-sex “marriage” onslaught. Much of the argument focused specifically on what aspects of a wedding ceremony counted as “speech” for the purposes of the First Amendment. Trying to draw a line and putting some wedding-related activities, such as cake baking and photography on the protected side and makeup and hairstyling, for example, on the other side, is a complete red herring.
Rather, I believe and hope that the court will take a broader approach to the question of religious liberty that was touched upon by Chief Justice Roberts when he asked whether a Catholic legal aid service could be forced to represent a same-sex couple in a marriage-related case simply because they offered pro bono legal services to the community at large. The question really goes beyond just a wedding. If “decent and honorable” people believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, their “freedom of action in matters of religion generally” demand that they be able to live out their faith.
Christianity teaches that we should treat everyone with love, but it does not demand that we approve of every choice that others make. Why should there be a difference between forcing a baker to create a cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding and forcing a Catholic adoption service to place children with same-sex couples? Why does the same-sex couple’s supposed right to adopt a child supersede a child’s right to have a mother and a father or the Catholic social worker’s right to live out his or her vocation to care for orphans by placing them in healthy family environments?
In either case, the state would be forcing the subject to endorse or facilitate an event or behavior which his sincerely held religious beliefs teach is wrong. It’s really that simple. In either case, the objection is not to the fact that the person is gay. It would be discriminatory if Philips refused to sell the couple a pre-made cake or anything else in the store because they were gay, but that’s not what happened.
The Constitution says there shall be no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion or abridging the freedom of speech. I believe the Court can and should develop a doctrine that allows Christians and other decent and honorable people to avoid endorsing or participating in events or behaviors that their religious beliefs proscribe while still protecting the rights of LGBT persons against discrimination. As Justice Kennedy said in the oral argument, “tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual.”
One of the things I’ve written about in the past is the willingness of the left to ignore Islam’s positions on Homosexuality and Gay Marriage, apparently a big part of it, at least in Australia is tactical:
Last night on ABC’s The Drum, Ali Kadri, spokesman for the Islamic Council of Queensland and the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, said his community was stuck with the choice of offending allies or siding with critics, and the result had been silence.
“Unfortunately, in the current climate, the right and conservative side has attacked Muslims as terrorists and extremists, and naturally the left side has been allies in defending us for a long period of time,” he said.
“We are afraid if we come out with our opinion then the left may abandon us for going against their view and we can’t be friendly with the conservatives because they have been bashing us for 15, 20 years every chance they get … and that includes some Christian sects as well.”
Or to rephrase, we don’t want to do anything to make the useful idiots any less useful.
They understand the war better than the kufar. The left has been doing their dirty work for well over a decade now. Why agitate the agitators and knaves doing the heavy lifting in the spread of Islam and sharia? When the time comes, the left will be dealt with in much the same manner as the rest of the unbelievers.
They don’t only understand the war, they understand that the Common Thread of the Left is hatred of Christianity and any kind of alliance with devout Christians in Australia or anywhere else will outrage the left more than any amount of sermons against Homosexuality or gays thrown off roofs. I think Robert Spencer has this nailed:
Muslims who are concerned about their opposition to homosexuality causing them to risk losing the support from “the left side” may have nothing to worry about, if the Pride Parade in Vancouver is any indication of where the loyalties of the “left side” lie. The absurdity of a gay Muslim being rejected for opposing the human rights abuses justified by Sharia is astonishing. Opposing gays will likely be tolerated by “the left side.” As a result of the aggressive “Islamophobia” campaign, the only religion that cannot and must not be challenged, no matter what, is Islam, even when that challenge is coming from progressive Muslims. Last year, Facebook banned a gay magazine critical of Islam.
My own American success story depends on the willingness of you dear reader to like what you see here and support it, so if you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please consider hitting DaTipJar to help me secure a weekly paycheck.
Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer
Remember your subscription pay our Magnificent Seven writers each month
To say I was disgusted by this AP story is an understatement but I’d like to remind everyone who shares this disgust with where we are what made this possible:
It was made possible when Democrats in the 90’s insisted that “civil unions” would not lead to gay marriage and Republicans Insisted there was no need for a constitutional amendment on marriage (they were lying)
It was made possible by a single vote in the Massachusetts Supreme Court that had been stacked with ultra liberals by folks like Bill Weld.
It was made possible by an ambitious republican pol who after being willing to throw his pro-life credentials off the bus to be elected was willing to quietly accept this ridiculous ruling without fighting back for fear it would harm his presidential election and fundraising chances.
It was made possible by a Democrat party so rightly afraid that the first black president might lose re-election without LGBT dollars that their vice president dragged him kicking and screaming out of the “closet” of support.
And finally it was made possible because Black Pastors and black churches all over the country, given the choice of following Christ or following Obama after he came out in favor of Gay Marriage overwhelmingly choose Obama.
What do all of these things have in common? The desire to gain or retain political power over the desire for truth.
All of this took less than one generation. That’s all the time it takes to lose a culture when people are too cowardly to fight for it.
The Layoff bleg continues. with e days to go we’re stuck at $1515 away from the goal to make August dedicated to the blog, the new radio show and events.
This blog is a venture in capitalism that depends primarily on readers. You can help finance this by picking up my new book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) prayer is now available at Amazon
A portion of every sale will go to WQPH 89.3 Catholic Radio) or show your approval by Hitting DaTipJar
and if you really want to help for the long term consider subscribing and get my book as a premium
And as I’ve said before if you can’t spare the cash we will be happy to accept your prayers.
Judge: “Mr. Larch you are accused of invoking your Catholic faith in refusing to bake a cake for this gay couple’s wedding and instead referring them to a rival bakery. As a broad open minded liberal judge I must ask this question, aren’t you ashamed of yourself?”
Mr. Larch: “Your honor I think one of them voted for Donald Trump in the last election.”
There are thousands–maybe hundreds of thousands–of explanations about why Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last week that you can find online and in print, as well as why the Republicans maintained control of Congress and gained governorships.
Here’s another one, although this discussion confronts one angle, what I call “inevitable leftism.” Barack Obama was the “Hope and Change” candidate for president in 2008; four years later, “Forward” was his rallying cry. Some conservative pundits noticed that “Forward” has a long history as a communist and socialist slogan.
Leftists, Obama is one, firmly believe that their cause is one of inevitable success, that humanity is headed towards–choose your term–a collectivist, socialist, or communist utopia. They view popular leaders such as Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan, as atavistic aberrations, mere potholes that can be paved over when the time is right, sooner, as opposed to later.
Except when they are wrong.
The French Revolution, still idealized by the Left, deposed a king and disestablished the Roman Catholic church, and replaced the Ancien Régime with an atheist republic that executed thousands, which was quickly transformed into a dictatorship led by an Italian. Along the way the days and months were renamed in a new decimal calendar–hours and minutes were divided by ten too, as were weights and measures. A couple of decades later there was a king again in France, the Catholic church was the state religion–but the metric system survived, yet strangely enough, it still hasn’t completely caught on in the United States.
Maximilien Robespierre, the guiding force of the French Revolution, and his inner circle were certain they were guiding the world on the right path. He may have even held on to that belief as he walked up to the guillotine, two years after Louis XVI after made the same, final stroll.
The Russian Revolution’s state, the Soviet Union, was similarly hailed by the Left as a societal inevitably, it also led to regicide, and tens of millions were killed. Because the USSR survived much longer than the French Republic, it succeeded in shattering Russian culture. But the surviving Russian nation is a South American-style sham democracy run by a thug, not a nation consisting of a populace that lives “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Barack Obama is not a psychopath or a murderer. But he’s a leftist, albeit one along the lines of French President François Hollande. Obama decided that America needs government-run health care in 2009 but he knew that what the Democrats euphemistically call single-payer would be unpopular, so a hybrid program, quickly dubbed ObamaCare, was developed as a bridge to that health care utopia. ObamaCare is deeply unpopular, and it was one reason for Trump’s win. The president-elect says he will repeal most of ObamaCare. The Democrats’ push for gay marriage is another page from the book of Dem inevitability, but only 21 nations allow same-sex marriages, none of them are in Asia, and South Africa is the only country in Africa that allows it.
It was the Democrats who, through their many friends in the judiciary, that created the so-called crisis surrounding the minuscule segment of the population who feel compelled to use the washrooms and the locker rooms–even in high school–of the opposite gender. They view choose-your-own-bathroom as their next social inevitability. The Democrats are the party of the confused horny teenage boy who wants to shower with girls.
Next year France will hold a presidential election. Marine Le Pen, a far-right politician with a fierce anti-immigrant stance, whose election as president last year ago seemed as likely as Trump moving in to the White House was, is confident of her chances. Hollande hasn’t declared himself as a candidate. Is Le Pen, another atavistic aberration, the inevitability of France?
France is ten percent Muslim. With the higher birth rates of its Muslim citizens a majority Muslim France could be possible by the end of the century. Gay marriage has been legal in France since 2013. Will it be in 2113?
The policy of open borders is also viewed as the next level of human achievement by the Left. It has worked well for the European Union, but there’s a big difference between thousands Germans buying homes in Italy and thousands of Middle Eastern migrants arriving in ramshackle boats there. Democrats, and even some Republicans, have been ignoring calls from ordinary citizens, now dubbed “the Forgotten Man,” to secure the southern border for decades. Opposition to open borders was the main reason why British voters voted to leave the EU.
Of course no one can predict the future. Not even leftists, even though they never tire in telling you how smart they are.
In the United States the hubris of inevitability led to the defeat of the Left last week.
What Cruz has said is that Gay Marriage is not a top three issue for him, but you might be surprised considering all I’ve written on the topic & the culture wars is that it’s not a top 3 issue for me either.
Now I can’t speak for Ted Cruz or Mike Huckabee but here is my top 3 list.
Right now for me Issue #1 is the war on terror specifically the threat of ISIS.
You can’t fight a culture war if you’re dead and ISIS threatens not only the US but all of western civilization and in fact the world.
Then comes issue #2 for me, The Border and Illegal Immigration.
You can’t fight a culture war in your country unless you have a country and you don’t have a country if you don’t have borders.
and that’s not even talking about how important the border is to the war on ISIS or the threat from the various drug cartels that are walking across it.
Does Mike Huckabee think that the border is not a top three issue?
Now there are plenty of issues that are worthy of #3. There is the black lives matter, race relations and the war on cops, there is Gay Marriage and the broader religious freedom issue, there is Russia and NATO, China in the pacific and of course the Economy, but for me there is only one Issue that can go to #3
Abortion trumps all of those remaining issues including the cultural ones because once a country is safe (issue #1) and it’s borders secure (#2) you need to have a country that supports and values life.
Without valuing life, black lives can’t matter (only Abortion is more dangerous to black Americans than the gangs that are slaughtering them in the cities), without the lives thrown away in abortion you don’t have the manpower to for a military to confront Russia or China and unless you respect the lives of your own people you won’t find value in the lives of those oppressed by such totalitarians. Without the respect for life you throw away the people who drive the economy and you don’t respect the people who work within it and while Gay Marriage is a foolish narcissistic choice it can’t trump the right for a person to be born and make that foolish choice.
And anyways if it turn out that the current liberal meme concerning being “born gay” is right, the right and value of every unborn child becomes more critical because the moment homosexuality can be determined in vitro you will see a gay genocide. Every human life has value. Some people object to the murder of Gay people by ISIS, I object to their murder in the womb as well.
Now again I don’t know what is the priority for Mike Huckabee but if he is hitting Ted Cruz for not having Gay Marriage as a top 3 issue but for it to crack top 3 then one of the ones on my list can’t be on his list.
So tell me Governor, which issue ISIS, Immigration or abortion is not important enough to make the Huckabee top 3?
I suspect if the previous governor did this to defuse the whole Kim Davis business a Democrat might still govern the state today.
Kentucky’s new governor on Tuesday ordered county clerks’ names removed from state marriage license forms at the center of a controversy involving Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed after refusing to issue licenses to gay couples.
Governor Matt Bevin had said shortly after his election in November, as only the second Republican governor of Kentucky since 1971, that he would change the forms that had drawn objections from Davis and some other clerks.
“To ensure that the sincerely held religious beliefs of all Kentuckians are honored, I took action to revise the clerk marriage license form,” Bevin said in a statement.
“This is a wonderful Christmas gift for Kim Davis,” the group said. “Kim can celebrate Christmas with her family knowing she does not have to choose between her public office and her deeply-held religious convictions.”
I think driving Kim Davis from the Democrat party will cost them for decades to come.
Note: I don’t recall the ACLU getting their knickers in an uproar over Obama’s exec orders.