'Gay Marriage' Battle NOT Over in Some States

Officials in several states are not simply "falling in line" with the sexual revolutionaries' demands regarding same-sex "marriage."  For example, Kentucky appears likely to create new marriage license forms that will be absent any officials' names, and Alabama will likely eliminate marriage licenses entirely in favor of simple contractual forms that virtually negate government-sanctioned marriage.

For background, read click headlines below to read previous articles:

Missouri Christians' Likely Big Win vs. Gay Agenda (RFRA)

Nullify 'Gay Marriage:' South Carolina; Other States

Supreme Court's 'Gay Marriage' Ruling is Illegitimate, Scholars Say

Also read Citizens Reject President Obama's Homosexual Ambassador

-- From "Kentucky Senate approves bill to require two different marriage license forms" by Jack Brammer, Lexington Herald-Leader 2/18/16

Under Senate Bill 5, sponsored by Sen. Stephen West, R-Paris, one marriage license would designate the “bride” and “groom” and the other would designate “first party” and “second party.” West said couples could use either form, both of which would require applicants to note their genders so historians who review marriage licenses could know their sex.

Opponents declared the bill unconstitutional minutes after the Republican-led Senate approved it on a 30-8 vote.

[Last year,] Then-Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, changed Kentucky’s marriage license form after the Supreme Court ruling to remove “bride” and “groom,” replacing them with “first party” and “second party.” Republican Matt Bevin issued an executive order shortly after taking office in December to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses and urged the legislature to take further action.

The bill now goes to the House, where Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, has indicated the chamber would pass its own marriage license bill.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alabama Senate approves replacing marriage licenses with contracts" by The Associated Press 3/15/16

Senators approved the bill 23-3 on Tuesday. It would require couples to file a form recording their marriage rather than have county probate offices issue licenses.

Republican Sen. Greg Albritton of Range says the change would end controversy over marriage licenses while ensuring that people can marry whomever they choose.

A few Alabama probate judges have stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether to avoid giving them to same-sex couples.

The bill now moves to the Alabama House of Representatives.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read 'Gay Marriage' Stopped in Alabama by Judges

From "Alabama Supreme Court Rejects U. S. Supreme Court’s Marriage Opinion" posted at Liberty Counsel 3/7/16

Today, in a 170-page ruling, the Alabama Supreme Court rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage opinion by issuing its own Judgment in favor of Liberty Counsel’s Petition for Mandamus. In the petition, Liberty Counsel demanded on behalf of its Alabama clients – Alabama Policy Institute (“API”) and Alabama Citizens Action Program (“ALCAP”) – that the state’s probate judges obey Alabama’s Constitution and laws. On March 4, 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the probate judges to immediately cease issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

“The ruling last year by the Alabama Supreme Court was historic, and is one of the most researched and well-reasoned opinions on marriage to be issued by any court in the country. Today’s opinion by the Alabama Supreme Court calling the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage opinion ‘illegitimate’ will be remembered in history like the ‘shot heard around the world,’” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.

Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker issued concurring opinions openly criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court marriage opinion. Using Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert’s term of “five lawyers” when referring to the Supreme Court Obergefell opinion, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote a blistering 105-page concurring opinion . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alabama's top judge: 'Same-sex marriage' creation 'lawless'" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 3/4/16

The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday dispensed with what probably was the last legal case over the U.S. Supreme Court’s creation last summer of “same-sex marriage,” dismissing several related petitions and ripping the nation’s highest court as “lawless.”

The Alabama court also left undisturbed its determination that the state’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and Marriage Protection Act, limiting marriage to one man and one woman, are constitutional and should be followed by the state’s probate judges, the only ones in Alabama who can issue marriage licenses.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote in the order dismissing several petitions in the case: “As stated at the beginning of this special concurrence, the certificate of judgment in this case does not disturb the March 2015 orders of this court that uphold the constitutionality of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act. For that reason, as explained above, I concur.”

He said the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling “is completely without constitutional authority, a usurpation of state sovereignty, and an effort to impose the will of ‘five lawyers,’ as Chief Justice Roberts stated … on the people of this country.

Moore wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling is “like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade that preceded it, is an immoral, unconstitutional, and tyrannical opinion.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Why the Gay Marriage Legal Battle Just Entered Uncharted Territory" by Nate Madden, Conservative Review 3/9/16

. . . the highest court in the state [of Alabama] has ruled that Alabama’s laws hold on the grounds that the Supreme Court’s ruling only applies to the parties of the case. Now the Alabama order applies to all probate judges in the state, and judges could be held in contempt of Supreme Court order, according to a telephone interview with [founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel Mat] Staver.

Many will wonder how a federal ruling could not apply to all states in the union. After all, this has been the commonly-accepted practice for similar rulings of this magnitude, especially ones involving the 14th Amendment incorporation. This is where it gets really fuzzy. What happens now still “remains to be seen,” according to Staver. This is because the last time the United States saw something like this was in the years following the pro-slavery Dred Scott v. Sanford decision in which several state and circuit courts issued rulings that were in direct contradiction to that of the Supreme Court of the United States.

. . . The fight over marriage has undeniably spilled over into several other different, yet interconnected, legal battles over religious freedom, free speech, freedom of association and, in this case, America’s very understanding of federalism itself. While the futures of the rights enumerated in the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is still up in the air regarding the ongoing and avaricious demands of the sexual revolutions, it would seem that the fate of the Tenth Amendment might not yet be completely sealed on this issue.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Supreme Court Justice Scalia Said Government Should Favor God of the Bible

Nullify 'Gay Marriage:' S. Carolina; Other States

Conservative state legislatures across America will consider various measures in 2016 to counteract effects of the 2015 Supreme Court decision that redefined marriage, including a bill in South Carolina aimed at nullifying the same-sex "marriage" ruling.

"I think there's a lot of states that are looking at this and seeing what can be done to make sure that religious freedoms are respected."
-- Rep. Mike Cierpiot, Missouri House Majority Leader (30th District)

UPDATE 3/16/16: 'Gay Marriage' Battle NOT Over in Some States

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

'Gay Marriage' Stopped in Alabama by Judges

Homosexualists Battle Lawmakers in Indiana Over Religious Liberty

North Carolina Law Allows Magistrates to Refuse 'Gay Marriage'

Supreme Court's 'Gay Marriage' Ruling is Illegitimate, Scholars Say

Also read Catholic School Must Hire Homosexuals, Court Rules

And read Supreme Justice Scalia Says the Federal Government SHOULD Favor Religion

-- From "States plan renewed debate on LGBT rights, religious freedom" by David A. Lieb, Associated Press 1/5/16

There are 22 states with laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and 21 with laws limiting the government's ability to burden the free exercise of religion. But just four states — Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois and New Mexico — have both.

The ACLU will be seeking to expand the list of places barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It's targeting at least a half dozen states — Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania — that have Republican-led legislatures and also may be pivotal in presidential elections.

The Family Research Council, which opposed the Houston ordinance, is supporting state measures that would grant broad protections "from government discrimination" against people "who have a sincere belief — religious or not — in natural marriage," said Quena Gonzalez, the group's director of state and local affairs.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read about the Gay Agenda strategy of attacking one town, or one state at a time, to elevate "gay rights" over religious liberty.

From "Spartanburg County lawmaker files bill to get rid of same-sex marriage" by Zach Fox, Spartanburg Herald Journal 1/5/16

[South Carolina state] Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Woodruff, and Rep. Mike Burns, R-Taylors, pre-filed a bill in the House to define marriage as between one man and one woman. He also aims for his bill to invalidate same-sex marriages in South Carolina. The bill is titled as the South Carolina Natural Marriage Defense Act.

"I represent the people, and the people have shown several times that they are opposed to this, and are in favor of traditional marriage," Chumley said.

The bill also proposes the South Carolina Attorney General to represent state officials in lawsuits relating to same sex-marriages.

The Supreme Court ruling in June legalizing same-sex marriage came down to a 5 to 4 vote, Chumley said. He said the split vote was indicative of the views of all Americans.

"Apparently, those four people believe like we do," he said. "I do believe that something that's a close vote like that sends a message, it's not cut and dry."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "South Carolina Bill Seeks to Nullify SCOTUS Opinion on Marriage" posted at Tenth Amendment Center 12/9/15

. . . [The House Bill H4513] legislation declares “It is the policy of the State of South Carolina to defend natural marriage as recognized by the people of this State in the Constitution and laws of the State of South Carolina.”

It further asserts, “Natural marriage between one man and one woman as recognized by the people of this State remains the law in South Carolina, regardless of any court decision to the contrary. A court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect.”

H4513 would also prohibit state agencies from enforcing any court order that has the effect of violating South Carolina’s laws protecting natural marriage, and would prohibit the state from applying any levy upon the property or arresting “any government official or individual who does not comply with any unlawful court order regarding natural marriage within South Carolina.”

Practically speaking, H4513 would require the state of South Carolina to defend a state or local official who found him or herself in a situation similar to Rowan County clerk Kim Davis in Kentucky when a federal judge required her to issue marriage licenses to gay couples and threw her in jail when she refused to comply. It would prohibit the use of state facilities, and the assistance of state and local law enforcement in enforcing any federal rulings. These actions would undoubtedly make it difficult for the feds to enforce their will.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "South Carolina Bill Blocks Enforcement of Same-Sex Marriage Ruling" by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D., posted at The New American 12/14/15

States, as creators of the federal government, are the arbiters of the limits of the latter’s power, and forcing them to accept the definition of "marriage" to include same-sex unions certainly falls outside those limits.

One way that states can continue simultaneously supporting the Constitution and their own sovereignty is by nullifying the federal court’s extra-constitutional edict. The South Carolina bill would take that state along this constitutionally sound course.

Nullification recognizes that states retain the power to invalidate any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

. . . Fortunately, Bill Chumley, Mike Burns, and several other state legislators across the country are stepping into the breach to restore the principles of federalism and limited government established by our Founding Fathers.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama's Homosexual Christmas Proclamation

And read Plural Marriage Now: 3 Gay Men 'Marry' — Polyamory

Supreme Justice Scalia: Gov't SHOULD Favor Religion

Yesterday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told students at Archbishop Rummel High School in Metairie, Louisiana that the Constitution does NOT, in any fashion, require that the federal government remain neutral concerning religion.

“Don't cram [that neutrality concept] down the throats of an American people that has always honored God on the pretext that the Constitution requires it.”
-- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Constitution Provides No Right to Same-sex 'Marriage,' Says Justice Scalia

Scalia Says Supreme Court's New Morality Means Justice for Polygamy

Liberal Activist Judges Say Scalia Right on 'Gay Marriage'

Scalia Says Supreme Court Decision Favors Abortionists' Speech

Also read Justice Antonin Scalia vs. Judicial Activism

-- From "Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'" by Rebecca Kheel, The Hill 1/2/16

“God has been very good to us,” Scalia said at a speech at a Catholic high school in Louisiana, according to the Times-Picayune. “One of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor.”

On Saturday, he said the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over another. But, he added, that doesn’t mean the government has to favor non-religion over religion.

He argued that’s a more modern reading originating in the courts in the 1960s.

If Americans want to the government to be non-religious, he said, they should vote on it instead of courts deciding.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scalia at Rummel: God has been good to U.S. because we honor him" by USA Today Network Staff and wire reports 1/3/16

"To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he said. "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"

Scalia was speaking at Archbishop Rummel High School at an event sponsored by the school and Catholic Community Radio as an early commemoration of Religious Freedom Day.

Scalia said that his colleagues on the Supreme Court often spend a lot of time deciding if the government favors religion over non-religion in many of their rulings.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Scalia says God is 'very good' to US because US honors him, dismisses religious neutrality" by Rebecca Santana, Associated Press 1/2/16

He also said there is "nothing wrong" with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.

Scalia said during the Sept. 11 attacks he was in Rome at a conference. The next morning, after a speech by President George W. Bush in which he invoked God and asked for his blessing, Scalia said many of the other judges approached him and said they wished their presidents or prime ministers would do the same.

"God has been very good to us. That we won the revolution was extraordinary. The Battle of Midway was extraordinary. I think one of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor. Unlike the other countries of the world that do not even invoke his name we do him honor. In presidential addresses, in Thanksgiving proclamations and in many other ways," Scalia said.

"There is nothing wrong with that and do not let anybody tell you that there is anything wrong with that," he added.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Government can, should, support religion, Justice Antonin Scalia tells Metairie crowd" by Robert McClendon, The Times-Picayune 1/2/16

Government support for religion is not only justified by the Constitution, it was the norm for hundreds of years and it helped the United States become a free and prosperous nation, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday in Metairie.

The Constitution's First Amendment protects the free practice of religion and forbids the government from playing favorites among the various sects, Scalia said, but that doesn't mean the government can't favor religion over nonreligion.

That was never the case historically, he said. It didn't become the law of the land until the 60s, Scalia said, when he said activist judges attempted to resolve the question of government support of religion by imposing their own abstract rule rather than simply observing common practice.

At the time the Constitution was written, religion was ubiquitous. Scalia noted that Thomas Jefferson, who first invoked the idea of a "wall of separation between church and state," also penned Virginia's religious freedom law, founded a university with dedicated religious space and, in writing the Declaration of Independence, regularly invoked God.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Justice Scalia Says Satan is Real, Journalist Dumbfounded

Pro-lifers Muzzled — Maine City Must Pay $56,500

As a result of a consent judgment approved by Judge Nancy Torresen of the U.S. District Court in Portland, Maine, the city of Portland will pay legal fees of pro-lifers who were barred from public property near the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic by an unconstitutional ordinance.

“This judgment is significant because it is a formal and binding legal recognition that the city of Portland violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights through its ‘buffer zone’ ordinance. There was no legitimate basis for banning the plaintiffs and other law-abiding citizens from using the public sidewalk surrounding Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinic during the company’s business hours.”
-- Erin Kuenzig, Attorney with the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan

For background, read U.S. Supreme Court Rules Unanimously that Christians are Free to Speak near Abortion Clinics

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Government Pays $275,000 for Pro-lifers' False Arrests

Idaho University Pays $20,000 to Unmuzzle Pro-lifers

Wyoming Pays $30,000 for Censoring Pro-life Posters

Harassment of Pro-lifers Costs Illinois City $$

Ohio College Pays $9,000 for Censoring Pro-life Free Speech

-- From "Portland settles lawsuit bought by anti-abortion activists over no-protest zone ordinance" by The Associated Press 10/21/15

The city of Portland has settled a lawsuit filed by anti-abortion activists challenging an ordinance that established a 39-foot no-protest zone around a clinic providing abortions.

The suit alleged that the ordinance, responsible for creating the buffer zone around a Planned Parenthood location's entrance, violated their free speech rights. A 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling established that a similar no-protest zone in Massachusetts was in violation of free speech rights.

The Portland City Council repealed the ordinance in question soon after, but a judge determined that protesters could still seek damages for when the buffer zone was in effect.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Portland settles lawsuit, must pay abortion protesters’ legal fees" by Scott Dolan, Staff Writer, Portland Press Herald 10/21/15

Jessica Grondin, spokeswoman for the city of Portland, said the City Council “acted swiftly” by repealing the city ordinance at its first meeting after the Supreme Court ruled in the Massachusetts case.

An attorney for the activists – Daniel and Marguerite Fitzgerald of Shapleigh and their children and Richmond resident Leslie Sneddon – said last year, after the city repealed its buffer zone ordinance, that they wanted to continue the federal court litigation against the city to set a precedent.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "High court voids abortion clinic protest-free zone" by Mark Sherman, Associated Press 6/26/14

The Supreme Court unanimously struck down the 35-foot protest-free zone outside abortion clinics in Massachusetts Thursday [June 2014], declaring it an unconstitutional restraint on the free-speech rights of protesters.

While the court was unanimous in the overall outcome, [Chief Justice John] Roberts joined with the four liberal justices to strike down the buffer zone on narrower grounds than the other, more conservative justices wanted.

In a separate opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized Roberts’ opinion as carrying forward “this court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents.”

Scalia said state and local governments around the country would continue to be able to “restrict antiabortion speech without fear of rigorous constitutional review.” Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, Scalia dissented from the Colorado decision and said Thursday he would have overturned it.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge dismisses most of lawsuit over since-repealed abortion clinic buffer zone" by Seth Koenig, Bangor Daily News Staff 10/27/14

A federal judge on Monday declared most aspects of a lawsuit against the city of Portland moot, pointing out that the abortion clinic buffer zone being challenged in the lawsuit was repealed by the city months ago.

But U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Torresen stopped short of dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety, leaving alive a motion by the plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion protesters, to seek nominal damages from the city for the period of time in which they weren’t allowed to demonstrate near the clinic on Congress Street.

City officials and Planned Parenthood representatives said the buffer zone protected the civil rights of patients to access health care services, and they accused the anti-abortion demonstrators of being intimidating and belligerent to individuals approaching the facility.

The protesters argued the buffer zone infringed upon their constitutionally protected right to free speech. The demonstrators said allegations of aggressive behavior were overblown, as evidenced by the fact that police never issued them any summonses for impeding public ways or disorderly conduct.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read how public schools across America muzzle pro-life students and ban pro-life student clubs.

Supreme's 'Gay Marriage' Illegitimate, Scholars Say

A convergence of dozens of prominent legal scholars say that the Supreme Court's June Gay Agenda (Obergefell v. Hodges) ruling "must be judged anti-constitutional and illegitimate," and are calling on government officials and citizens across America to defy the ruling, by declaring:

We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is.

We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.

We call on all federal and state officeholders:

To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.

To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions.

To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons.

To open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell.

UPDATE 3/16/16: 'Gay Marriage' Battle NOT Over in Some States

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

'Gay Marriage' Stopped in Alabama by Judges

North Carolina Law Allows Magistrates to Refuse 'Gay Marriage'

Gay American Courts Persecute Christian County Clerk Kim Davis

Homosexualist Oregon Persecutes Christian Judge

ACLU Sues Christians for Refusing 'Gay Marriage'

'Christian Rights' Lawsuit: Refused 'Gay Marriage'

Also read how Gay Agenda judicial activism has impacted Christian schools, and Christian students, and Christian consumers, and Christian citizens, and Christian-owned companies, and Christian mom-and-pop businesses, and Christian government officials, and even Christian pastors and churches.

-- From "Beyond Obergefell: Religious Liberties Proponents Survey the New Landscape" by Lana Birbrair, Harvard Law School (HLS) News 10/5/15

One year after a major win in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, advocates for religious accommodation fear Obergefell could herald a narrowing of space for those who oppose same-sex marriage to express their views and could lead to a trampling of their beliefs.

Strong opponents of same-sex marriage, such as Robert P. George ’81, a Princeton University professor and recent visiting professor at HLS, see Obergefell as another in a line of cases, including Roe v. Wade, in which the Court overstepped its bounds and decided an issue better left to voters. Although he hopes that the political tide will change and the decision will be reversed or overturned by constitutional amendment, he says that the bigger battles in the coming years are likely to involve the tension between LGBT and religious rights.

For example, George argues, those who seek to restrict religious liberty exemptions only to “religious activities,” and not to secular actions performed in religious institutions, misunderstand the nature of religious institutions. “Religious people cannot draw that distinction,” he says. “They see religion pertaining to the whole of life, especially when it’s the life of a religious institution.” Among other concerns, George cited the possibility that religious organizations might lose tax-exempt status if they fail to accommodate same-sex marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Statement Calling for Constitutional Resistance to Obergefell v. Hodges" American Principles Project 10/8/15

The Court’s majority opinion eschewed reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Court’s own interpretative doctrines and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife.

The opinion for the Court substituted for traditional—and sound—methods of constitutional interpretation a new and ill-defined jurisprudence of identity—one that abused the moral concept of human dignity.

The four dissenting justices are right to reject the majority opinion in unsparing terms.

Justice Scalia refers to it as “a naked judicial claim to legislative….power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”

Justice Thomas says the opinion “exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority” as it perverts the meaning of liberty into an entitlement to government action.

Justice Alito calls attention to the well-established doctrine that the “liberty” guaranteed by the due process clause protects only those rights “that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and that it is “beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.” He further points to the opinion’s tendency to reduce the purpose of marriage to “the happiness of persons who choose to marry.” He warns it will be used to “vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy” and is yet another example of the “Court’s abuse of its authority.”

Chief Justice Roberts says “the Constitution leaves no doubt” that the majority’s “pretentious” opinion is incorrect. It even attempts to “sully those on the other side of the debate” in an “entirely gratuitous” manner.

If Obergefell is accepted as binding law, the consequences will be grave. Of the results that can be predicted with confidence, four stand out:

First, society will be harmed by being denied the right to hold out as normative, and particularly desirable, the only type of human relationship that every society must cultivate for its perpetuation. . . .

Second, individuals and organizations holding to the historic and natural understanding of marriage as a conjugal union—the covenantal partnership of one man and one woman—will be vilified, legally targeted, and denied constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conform to the new orthodoxy.

Third, the new jurisprudence of dignity is unlimited in principle and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions.

Fourth, the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined.

Any decision that brings about such evils would be questionable. One lacking anything remotely resembling a warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution must be judged anti-constitutional and illegitimate. Obergefell should be declared to be such, and treated as such, by the other branches of government and by citizens of the United States. . . .

Therefore . . . We emphasize that the course of action we are here advocating is neither extreme nor disrespectful of the rule of law. Lincoln regarded the claim of supremacy for the Supreme Court in matters of constitutional interpretation as incompatible with the republican principles of the Constitution. Our position is summed up in Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address:

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

[Signatories include affiliations with these institutions: Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Boston College Law School, Louisiana State University Law Center, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law at Faulkner University, Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University, University of St. Thomas School of Law, Regent University School of Law, Princeton University, Texas Tech University, Michigan State University, Azusa Pacific University, Kansas State University, University of Notre Dame, University of Texas, University of Nebraska, Central Connecticut State University, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Villanova University, Claremont Graduate University, Vanderbilt University, Pepperdine University, University of Dallas, Northern Illinois University, Boston University, California State University]

To read the entire statement above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Religious Liberty is in the Homosexualists' Crosshairs

And read President Obama Invokes God: Gay Agenda Trumps Freedom of Religion

ObamaCare Loses to Christians in High Court, Again

The Supreme Court's 2014 Hobby Lobby decision dealt a blow to President Obama's war on Christianity, but he continues to do battle via ObamaCare.  Yesterday's federal appeals court ruling against the government's birth control mandate means another win for Christian schools and businesses, and foreshadows yet another showdown at the Supreme Court.

“If the [Obama] administration can punish Christian organizations simply because they want to abide by their faith, there is no limit to what other freedoms it can take away. The 8th Circuit was right to uphold the district court’s order and block enforcement of this unconstitutional mandate.”
-- Gregory S. Baylor, senior counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

For background, read about the on-going battle of ObamaCare forcing Christians to pay for abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations; and also read Atheists and Liberals Alike Lament Recent Supreme Court Religious Liberty Rulings

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Federal Judge Blocks ObamaCare Assault on Christians

Christians Oppose ObamaCare, Support Hobby Lobby

Christians Forced into Abortion Business by 9th Circuit Court

California Forces Catholics to Fund Abortion Insurance

Also read President Obama Denies Leading War Against Christianity

However, President Obama Redefines 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion

-- From "Birth control, Obamacare could go back to Supreme Court again" by Anthony Perrucci, WGNO-TV26 (New Orleans, LA) 9/18/15

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis gave religious groups a big win in their fight against the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.

The court ruled Thursday to uphold an injunction against the mandate, in a case brought by Dordt College, of Sioux Center, Iowa, and Cornerstone University, of Grand Rapids, Mich.  The schools say their religious beliefs forbid them from providing contraception to employees–as well as applying for accommodations excusing them from doing so.

Six other appeals courts have ruled that the contraception mandate is, in fact, constitutional. That raises the likelihood of the Supreme Court taking up the case to resolve the conflict.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Contraception opt-out violates religious freedom: U.S. appeals court" by Brendan Pierson, Reuters 9/17/15

The [latest version of the ObamaCare] law allows religiously affiliated non-profit employers to opt out of paying for contraceptive coverage directly. Once they do, insurers must provide the coverage separately at no extra cost to the employee. Employers that do not follow the opt-out process face a financial penalty.

Many employers have filed lawsuits against the government, claiming that the opt-out process makes them complicit in providing contraceptive coverage. Before Thursday, however, every appeals court that considered the issue has rejected that argument.

The employers say the opt-out provision violates a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA].

The cases are Dordt College et al v. Burwell, No. 14-2726, and Sharpe Holdings Inc et al v. U.S. Department of Human Services et al, No. 14-1507, both in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Appeals court: ACA birth control mandate a 'substantial burden' on religious employers" by Doug G. Ware, UPI 9/17/15

"We conclude that compelling their participation in the accommodation process by threat of severe monetary penalty is a substantial burden on their exercise of religion," the court said.

The decision means the plaintiffs, four Christian nonprofits, do not need to abide by the law insofar as the birth control mandate is concerned.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court rules against ObamaCare birth control mandate" by Sarah Ferris, The Hill 9/17/15

“With today's decisions, the [Supreme] Court will have great reason to decide this issue in the next term,” one religious rights group, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, wrote in a statement Thursday.

The Supreme Court already has several cases involving the birth control mandate it could take up in its fall term.

The ruling includes 30 references to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the 2014 Supreme Court case that allowed certain for-profit companies to opt out of the mandate. Since that decision, multiple nonprofits, including universities, have taken legal action demanding to be granted the same permissions.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Religious groups win Obamacare birth control case" by Robert King, Washington Examiner 9/17/15

"Fifteen federal judges now agree that the government has no right to dictate or second guess a person's sincere religious beliefs," said Lori Windham, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The fund has financed the legal defense for CNS International Ministries and Heartland Christian College, which brought the lawsuit over the birth control mandate.

The appeals court ruled that the government's fines for CNS and the college, which only got an accommodation, do impose a burden on their religious beliefs.

"When the government imposes a direct monetary penalty to coerce conduct that violates religious belief, '[T]here has never been a question that the government 'imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion,'" the opinion said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Obama demands contraceptive coverage despite 72 court losses" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 9/17/15

Reaching the same conclusion as dozens of other courts, the 8th U.S. Circuit of Appeals has freed two Christian schools, Dordt College in Iowa and Cornerstone University in Michigan, from Obamacare’s abortion-pill mandate, because the law creates a burden on religious rights.

“Even assuming that the government’s interests in safeguarding public health and ensuring equal access to health care for women are compelling, the contraceptive mandate and accommodation process likely are not the least restrictive means of furthering those interests,” the court said.

ADF points out the abortion-pill mandate scorecard shows the government losing 72-16 in the courts. But the Obama administration continues to fight for the provision in its health-care legislation that requires employers to provide birth-control coverage, including drugs that cause abortion, which violates the religious beliefs of many employers.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read ObamaCare Funnels $1 Million to Planned Parenthood

And read President Obama Edicts More Transgender Rights via ObamaCare

Baptist, ACLU Force Ten Commandments Demo in Okla.

On June 30, 2015, the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Oklahoma, and its lead plaintiff Rev. Bruce Prescott, that the Ten Commandments on display near the state Capitol since 2012 violates the state constitution.  Last week, District Judge Thomas Prince ordered the privately funded $10,000 monument, authorized by the Legislature in 2009, be removed by October 12.

"The Constitution forbids states from banning all religion from public spaces, and from making churches the ghettos of religion where all manifestations of faith are kept separate from public life."
-- Attorney General Scott Pruitt

For background, read Atheists' Oklahoma Lawsuit vs. Ten Commandments Tossed by Federal Judge and also read Satan on Throne at Oklahoma Capitol with ACLU Help

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Federal Judge Allows Ten Commandments in Ohio Display

Ten Commandments Returns to Kentucky Courthouse after Appeal Win

Kentucky School Dumps Ten Commandments as Atheist Demand

Virginia School Compromises with ACLU for Ten Commandments Display

Pennsylvania Atheists Sue to Remove Ten Commandments from Church Land







-- From "Judge orders Ten Commandments monument removed" by Tim Talley, Associated Press 9/12/15

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the state in 2013 on behalf of the Rev. Bruce Prescott, a Baptist minister in Norman, and others who argued that the monument’s location violated the Oklahoma Constitution’s ban against using public property to support “any sect, church, denomination or system of religion.”

Prince initially sided with the state, ruling last year that the privately funded monument could remain on the Capitol grounds. Pruitt’s office argued that the statue was permitted because of the historical significance of the text.

But in a 7-2 ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said the monument was a religious symbol and violated the state constitution. The high court reaffirmed its ruling in July, when it denied a rehearing sought by Pruitt’s office.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge gives Oklahoma a month to remove Ten Commandments from Capitol" by Heide Brandes, Reuters 9/11/15

District Judge Thomas Prince denied a motion from Attorney General Scott Pruitt to keep in place the monument that had been on Capitol grounds since 2012 and garnered strong support from Oklahoma's Republican leadership.

The decision prompted Republican lawmakers to say they will look at impeachment for the [Supreme Court] justices who made the decision and legal briefs from the attorney general's office to keep the monument in the shadow of the Statehouse.

Lawmakers have argued that the monument was not serving a religious purpose but was meant to mark a historical event.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge orders removal of Ten Commandments monument" by Bob Allen, Baptist News Global 9/15/15

Bruce Prescott, an ordained Baptist minister and former executive director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists, sued the state in 2013 seeking removal of a 6-foot-tall stone monument authorized by state lawmakers in 2009.

On July 27 the high court denied a request for rehearing by Attorney General Scott Pruitt. Pruitt then filed a brief with Oklahoma County Judge Thomas Prince, asking the trial judge to consider if the state Supreme Court ruling "creates hostility toward religion that violates the U.S. Constitution."

The state Supreme Court refused to apply a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the placement of a similar monument on the Texas Capitol grounds, finding the issue lies with the Oklahoma constitution rather than the federal Bill of Rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that as a historical monument the Texas Ten Commandments display served a secular purpose. Prescott said in his lawsuit that as a Christian, he regards the Ten Commandments as religious doctrine and that attempts to co-opt them amounted to “a cheapening and denigration” of his faith.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Last Round in 10 Commandments Fight?" by David Lee, Courthouse News Service 9/14/15

The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on June 30 that the privately funded monument violates the Oklahoma Constitution prohibition of using public money or property for any church, denomination, religious leader or sectarian institution.

"The issue in the case at hand is whether the Oklahoma Ten Commandments monument violates the Oklahoma Constitution, not whether it violates the Establishment Clause," the per curiam opinion stated. "Our opinion rests solely on the Oklahoma Constitution with no regard for federal jurisprudence. As concerns the 'historic purpose' justification, the Ten Commandments are obviously religious in nature and are an integral part of the Jewish and Christian faiths."

The Oklahoma Supreme Court denied Attorney General Scott Pruitt's request for a rehearing on July 27.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Oklahoma judge orders Ten Commandments monument be removed from Capitol grounds in 30 days" by Kyle Schwab, The Oklahoman 9/11/15

The Capitol Preservation Commission has 30 days to remove the religious monument from the Capitol grounds.

District Judge Thomas Prince chose to follow the June 30 Oklahoma Supreme Court decision to remove the monument. The Supreme Court found the monument was a religious symbol and violated the state constitutional ban on using public property for “the benefit of any religious purpose.”

In a statement released after the ruling, Attorney General Scott Pruitt said he wants voters to have the chance to “rectify this problem” by voting to remove the section from the state Constitution.

To read the entire article above (with links to the complete news saga), CLICK HERE.

Gay American Courts Persecute Christian: Kim Davis

"Gay rights" attorneys knew the likely result of jailing Rowan County (Kentucky) Clerk Kim Davis for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.  They explained to reporters why they were NOT asking the judge for jail time: "We don’t want to make her a martyr."

Satan himself knows that Christianity grows and is strengthened through the persecution of those who stand strong and faithfully endure suffering in Christ's name.

"She [Kim Davis] won't bow, I promise you. I'm just an old, dumb, country hillbilly, but I know God."
-- Joe Davis, husband

"What we end up having is the first example of the criminalization of a Christian for believing in the traditional definition of marriage."
-- Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate

UPDATE 3/16/16: Kentucky Changes License Form -- 'Gay Marriage' Battle NOT Over in Other States

UPDATE 10/9/15: Scholars Say Support Kim Davis — Supreme Court's 'Gay Marriage' Ruling is Illegitimate

For background, read ACLU Sues Christians for Refusing 'Gay Marriage' and also read 'Christian Rights' Lawsuit: Refused 'Gay Marriage'

In contrast, read North Carolina Law Allows Magistrates to Refuse 'Gay Marriage'

UPDATE 9/9/15: Homosexualist Oregon Persecutes Christian Judge



Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Lesbian Government Official Nixes Christian Business at Denver Airport

Houston Lesbian Mayor Subpoenas Pastors' Sermons

9th Circuit Court Forces Christians into Abortion Business

Also read how President Obama and his federal government agencies are elevating the Gay Agenda above religious liberty.

It's obvious: Religious Liberty is in the Homosexualists' Crosshairs



-- From "'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights groups wanted to avoid" by Joseph Gerth, The Courier-Journal posted at USA TODAY 9/6/15

For the second straight day, Kim Davis awoke in the Carter County Detention Center, put there by U.S. District Judge David Bunning for her refusal to follow a court injunction requiring her to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

Hundreds of people gathered outside the Carter County Detention Center in a "Free Kim Davis" rally on Saturday and prayed for jailed Rowan County clerk, who was locked up just a few hundred feet away.

As Davis' mugshot flew across the Internet, it became clear that the gay rights movement must confront the idea that Christianity is under siege, said Kenneth Upton, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a law firm specializing in LGBT issues.

"This is what the other side wants," Upton said, pointing to an image of Davis in handcuffs. "This is a biblical story, to go to jail for your faith. We don't want to make her a martyr to the people who are like her, who want to paint themselves as victims."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Just what gay activists hoped to avoid: Clerk Kim Davis, the new face of Christian persecution" by Claire Galofaro, Associated Press 9/4/15

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing couples she turned away, asked that she be fined rather than imprisoned, in part to avoid "a false persecution story," said Dan Canon, one of the attorneys. But U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning ordered her to jail anyway, reasoning that she would be unmoved by monetary penalties.

"I think he was trying to make an example of Kim Davis, and he may well do so," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which lobbies against gay marriage. "Courage breeds courage, especially when it comes from unlikely places. She may be the example that sparks a firestorm of resistance across this country."

. . . Perkins and others on the religious right promise there are dozens of Kim Davises ready to go to jail in defense of their religious freedoms.

Liberty Counsel attorney Mat Staver said after meeting with Davis in jail Friday that "she is a prisoner of her conscience." He quoted the letter King wrote from his Birmingham jail cell in 1963, rallying civil rights activists to challenge unjust laws and pay the consequences if necessary to force peaceful change.

He described Davis as the first American imprisoned for a religious objection to gay marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Kim Davis' Jailing Isn't a Win for Marriage Equality" by Christian Piatt, Huffington Post 9/5/15

I understand the sense of vindication [by homosexualists] in having the power of law finally behind the judge's ruling. But it also does more to hamstring the advancement of marriage equality than it does to help it. After all, it is the law of the land now; the next effort should be to help normalize the idea of marriage equality within the culture and to mend the damaged relationships between those of us who advocated for it and those who did - or even continue to - resist it.

But perhaps the most important reason this is not good for the cause of marriage equality is that it's precisely the kind of fuel fundamentalists have sought to feed the fires of Christian persecution and martyrdom. Just today, Davis' lawyer compared her jailing on contempt charges to the mass imprisonment and genocide of Jewish people in Nazi Germany.

It's the job of the rest of us, however, who don't feel as the fundamentalists do to help create the climate in which it can be not only imagined; it can be experienced, contrary to any rhetoric being spewed from any pulpits or pundit outlets. As I see it, living out a different reality and choosing the path of Jesus is the best possible way to help neutralize the continued efforts of some to throw themselves on the ideological pyre, even if none actually exists.

To read the entire pro-homosexual, religious-left opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ted Cruz: Kim Davis’ arrest is ‘tyranny’ intended to drive Christians from office" by Ben Johnson, LifeSiteNews 9/4/15

Same-sex "marriage" was imposed on the nation by a 5-4 Supreme Court judgment authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The arrest of Kim Davis on "contempt of court" charges was ordered by U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning, a George W. Bush appointment who is the son of former moderate Republican senator and baseball great Jim Bunning of Kentucky.

"Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office," [Texas U.S Senator Ted] Cruz said.

His analysis is shared by former Sen. Rick Santorum. He warned, "More and more people of faith will face the penalties Ms. Davis is now encountering if we do not make the necessary accommodations so people can not just worship but live out their faith in their lives."

"I think it's absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty," Sen. Paul, R-KY, told CNN on Thursday afternoon. "I think it's a real mistake to be doing this."

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida agreed, “There should be a way to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of individuals working in the office.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Sen. Ted Cruz Rallies Christians in Iowa for Religious Liberty

From "Cruz Backs KY Clerk Jailed For Christian Beliefs: ‘This Is Wrong. This Is Not America.’" by Christian Datoc, Reporter, Daily Caller 9/3/15

“Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith,” Cruz began. “This is wrong. This is not America… I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.”

Additionally, the Republican presidential candidate attacked both Republicans and Democrats that are calling for Davis’s resignation. “They are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city? … Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?”

Finally, he called “upon every Believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis” and oppose the state-encouraged “persecution” of Christians.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Mike Huckabee to visit Kentucky clerk Kim Davis in jail" by Eugene Scott and Jeremy Diamond, CNN 9/4/15

Huckabee has seized on the issue, setting up a petition on his campaign website calling for Davis's release that has already drawn more than 55,000 signatures, and has called Davis's case an example of the "criminalization of Christianity in our country."

"We must defend religious liberty and never surrender to judicial tyranny," he said in a statement. "I am proud of Kim for standing strong for her beliefs. Who will be next? Pastors? Photographers? Caterers? Florists? This is a reckless, appalling, out-of-control decision that undermines the Constitution of the United States and our fundamental right to religious liberty."

Huckabee also slammed the judge's decision to remand Davis to custody "reckless" and "appalling," saying it undermines the Constitution.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Bobby Jindal Defends Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis" by Sam Levine, Associate Politics Editor, The Huffington Post 9/2/15

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said on Wednesday that a Kentucky county clerk had a right to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite an order from a federal judge to do so.

"I don't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions. I think it's wrong to force Christian individuals or business owners. We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it's clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that's wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience," he said. "I absolutely do believe people have a First Amendment right, a constitutional right. I don't think the court can take that away."

"The United States didn't create religious liberty. Religious liberty created the United States of America. It's the reason we are here today. This is an essential freedom and an essential right and I don't think you give up this right by simply taking a job."

Jindal's comments differ from those of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another Republican presidential contender, who said that Davis should comply with the law or resign.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Persecuted" sermon by Dr. Charles Stanley, senior pastor of First Baptist Church Atlanta, Georgia 10/20/13

Why does Christianity elicit such a negative reaction? [Because a] righteous life is a threat to a dark world. Christians who live in obedience to God are lights who expose the darkness of sinful practices.

Although persecution is meant to hurt and silence Christians, God uses it to accomplish His good purposes by the way it:

Tests our loyalty. The evidence of our faithfulness to Christ is not found in what we say but in what we do when fiery ordeals come our way. That’s when we either stay true to God, or we seek the world’s acceptance.

Enables us to encourage others undergoing persecution. When we’ve been mistreated and yet have experienced God’s help and strength to endure, we’re able to encourage others who are presently walking that same road of suffering.

Demonstrates our faith in God’s Word. When we truly believe the Scriptures, we’ll willingly suffer persecution knowing that God will make us adequate for every situation.

 Jesus accurately predicted that His followers would be hated, yet they would stay and endure if it meant being true to Christ (Matt. 10:22). No matter how bad opposition becomes, we have a promise that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ, not even persecution (Rom. 8:35-39). When the Lord calls us to stay in a difficult situation, we can respond properly by:

Standing strong. The strength to withstand persecution comes from the Lord. We stand strong in Him, based on everything He’s said in His Word (Eph. 6:10).

Enduring opposition. This means we abide under the persecution. Or in today’s language, we hang in there and rely on God’s strength until He moves us out of the situation.

Loving and praying for our enemies. This is perhaps the most difficult assignment, yet it’s what Christ commands (Matt. 5:44). We’re to pray that Jesus might be made known to our enemies through our responses to mistreatment. Unbelievers can’t understand why Christians exhibit strength, love, and forgiveness in the midst of ill treatment. Wherever the church has endured persecution, it has grown because people see how believers respond, and want that kind of life as well. The worst way to react to persecution is to stop talking about Jesus for fear of upsetting people. However, we need to unsettle them by courageously and clearly sharing the truth because without Christ, they’re on their way to everlasting separation from God. One day all their enjoyments and pursuits will vanish, and they’ll have to stand before a holy, righteous God. We want them to know the only One who can change their lives — both now and for all eternity.

To download all of the sermon notes above, CLICK HERE for PDF.

Click to watch Dr. Charles Stanley sermon on Persecution of Christians

More Dr. Charles Stanley sermons at America Going to Hell; Christians Lose Convictions

Religious Liberty vs. Gay Agenda: Ted Cruz in Iowa

Christians persecuted for their faith went on stage at a rally in Des Moines, Iowa last night to discuss how they were victimized by their own government and stripped of their jobs, businesses and religious liberty.  Republican presidential candidate and Texas U.S. senator Ted Cruz, hosting the event, told the crowd that America is nearing the end of its founding principle of freedom of religion if Bible-believing Christians don't rise up immediately.

Click here for complete rally video
Click here for shorter clip

"Is the next victim of persecution your pastor?  Your charity, where you volunteer your time at a crisis pregnancy center?"
". . . there is this liberal intolerance that says that anyone that dares follow a Biblical teaching of marriage, that is the union of one man and one woman must be persecuted, must be fined and must be driven out of business."
-- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

For background, see Sen. Ted Cruz explain in 2013 how the Gay Agenda will end freedom of religion and also read how it has come to pass in 2015:  Religious Liberty in Homosexualists' Crosshairs

UPDATE 8/23/15 - Sen. Cruz asked about same-sex marriage (CBS News Face the Nation video):


Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Homosexuals Force Closure of Iowa Christian Wedding Chapel

Gay Agenda Forced on Christian Colleges by Supreme Court

Kentucky Forbids Pastors Calling Homosexuality 'Sinful'

Pastors Lead Local Battles Against 'Gay Rights'

Houston Lesbian Mayor Subpoenas Pastors' Sermons

9th Circuit Court Forces Christians into Abortion Business

Atheists, Satanists Force Bible Ban in Florida Schools

Atheists Force Bible Bans at Colleges Across America

13 States vs. ACLU in Appeals Court over Civic Prayer

Also read how President Obama and his federal government agencies are elevating the Gay Agenda above religious liberty.

-- From "Ted Cruz: there is a ‘war on faith’" by Katie Zezima, Washington Post 8/21/15

Cruz, looking to gain traction in an early voting state with a heavy concentration of evangelical Christians, held a highly organized and produced "Rally for Religious Liberty" Friday night. The rally featured live music, interviews with people who said their religious liberty was violated and sermon-like speeches from Cruz, who tried to cement himself as the candidate of choice for evangelical voters in a crowded Republican primary field.

"There is a war on faith in America today," Cruz said, later noting that 54 million evangelical Christians stayed home during the 2012 election.

"I'm here to tell you, we will stay home no longer," he said as the audience, which filled a ballroom and the campaign estimated to number 2,500 people, cheered.

While Cruz will be competing for the evangelical vote with candidates including former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, former senator Rick Santorum and neurosurgeon Ben Carson, few have been as vociferous about the notion that religious liberty is under attack than Cruz. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ted Cruz preaches to the field" by Katie Glueck, Politico 8/22/15

First up onstage Friday night were Dick and Betty Odgaard, an Iowa couple who would not host a gay wedding at a venue they owned because they felt doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The two have been the subject of a lawsuit and closed their business. The senator sat down with the Odgaards onstage and prompted them to tell their story, bringing Betty Odgaard to the verge of tears.

“I know this has been a very hard journey,” Cruz told them, leaning over to hold Betty Odgaard’s hand in a rare public display of softer emotions from the senator. “Scripture tells us, God ordered our steps.”

“Amen,” she replied.

“I’m convinced you have gone down this road, endured the pain, endured the attacks, endured the hatred, precisely to put you where you are here today, for such a time as this,” he said, to applause.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "In Iowa, Ted Cruz rallies religious right" by Betsy Klein and Maggie Loughran, CNN 8/22/15

Cruz spoke about his experience defending freedom of religion at the Supreme Court and what he said were the threats facing religious liberty.

"These threats have been growing, they have been growing for decades but never have the threats been greater to religious liberty than they are right here and now today," he said.

"These threats are not imagined, they're not made up. These are real people leading real lives who found themselves facing persecution simply for living out their faith. There is a war on faith in America today."

The event featured guest speakers who had faced consequences of upholding their religious beliefs, from losing a job to vandalism to losing a business.

"They didn't ask for confrontation and the government came to them and said, 'Choose between faith and obedience to government power,' and they said, 'I follow a higher power and that is God almighty,'" Cruz said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Cruz: Threats against religious liberty never greater" by Matthew Patane, Des Moines Register 8/21/15

In his opening remarks [at the Community Choice Credit Union Convention Center] during the “Rally for Religious Liberty,” Cruz referenced a number of Supreme Court cases regarding religious issues that came down to a 5-4 decision.

“You want to know what this election is about? We are one justice away from the Supreme Court saying ‘every image of God shall be torn down,’” said Cruz, a U.S. senator from Texas said.

Iowa radio host Steve Deace, who endorsed Cruz earlier this week, interviewed the other guests. They included Barronelle Stutzman, a florist sued for declining to provide flowers to a same-sex marriage, and Oregon bakers Melissa and Aaron Kline, who declined to provide a cake to a same-sex marriage, among others.

“These are just everyday people like all of you in this room and yet they find themselves on the front line in the battle for the soul of this culture,” Deace said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ellen Page Confronts Ted Cruz on Gay Rights at Iowa State Fair" by Josh Haskell and Jessica Hopper, ABC News 8/21/15

While Sen. Ted Cruz was grilling pork chops at the Iowa State Fair today, actress Ellen Page, wearing a hat and sunglasses, snuck her way up to the grill and asked the GOP presidential candidate about "the persecution of gays in the workplace and LGBT rights."

"Well, what we’re seeing right now, we’re seeing Bible-believing Christians being persecuted for living according to their faith," Cruz responded.

The Texas senator, 44, went on to argue today that "no one has the right to force someone else to abandon their faith and their conscience."

"Imagine, hypothetically, you had a gay florist and imagine two evangelicals wanted to get married and they decide, ‘You know what, I disagree with your faith and I don’t want to provide flowers,’" Cruz posed to Page.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.



Also read RINO Illinois Gov. Favors Homosexuals over Kids

And read Republicans Going Gay, to be 'Moderate' & Likeable