If it is war they want, it is war they will get

So it has been a little over a week since the Obergefell hearing and the headlines continue to roll out.  Just for fun I thought I would collect a few,,,


What Happens If Same-Sex Marriage Becomes Nationally Recognized?

"One of the biggest changes in this country in the last four or five years is the level of hostility rising toward people of faith taking public viewpoints in their business or in the public square, even in schools and the military," said Former Senator and EchoLight CEO Rick Santorum. "Those who want to live their life consistent with biblical teachings are not being given space to do that. "

The backdrop to the Supreme Court holding this hearing is a number of high-profile cases of Christian business owners being forced by the government to provide services for same-sex weddings. As highlighted in "One Generation Away," which was released last September, there is a growing understanding that the redefinition of marriage cannot be separated from a loss of freedom. 

Peter LaBarbera Is 'Hoping And Praying' For A 'Constitutional Crisis' On Marriage

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality said last month that he is “hoping and praying” that if the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage, enough states will follow the lead of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in defying the decision that it will “create a constitutional crisis.”

Calling Moore “a national hero,” LaBarbera told South Carolina pastor Kevin Boling on his “Knowing the Truth” radio program that while “the judicial system has largely sold out to the homosexual activist movement,” Moore has at least “tried to put [on] the brakes.”

“I’m hoping and praying that some state somewhere, more than one, many states will say ‘no’ if the Supreme Court decides to pull a Roe v. Wade on homosexual so-called marriage, which would be to nationalize it or attempt to nationalize this ridiculous homosexual marriage movement,” he said.

“If it is nationalized in June or whenever that decision from the Supreme Court comes down,” he added, “I’m hoping that there is, that this creates a constitutional crisis and states fight back like what’s going on in Alabama.” 

Religious Lawyer Argues Marriage Equality Will Increase Abortions

The argument goes like this: The increase in same-sex marriage supposedly correlates to a decline in the overall marriage rate. Such declines mean an increase in the number of unmarried women. Unmarried women have more abortions than any other group—which is true, but not necessarily because they are unmarried. Therefore, marriage equality will result, in Schaerr’s estimation, nearly one million abortions—a number he seems to have invented out of thin air.

Janet Porter: Supreme Court Marriage Ruling Could Land Christians In Jail

Porter told Drake that the things she predicted in her 2005 book The Criminalization of Christianity: Read This Book Before It Becomes Illegal!” are coming true, and that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality, Christians will have to choose between obeying the ruling and going to jail.

“I’m telling you that if the court dares to issue another Roe v. Wade, in this case the Roe v. Wade for marriage, we will not obey it,” she said. “We’ll go to jail if we have to go to jail, but we will not bow to this agenda and violate our beliefs in God.”

“It’s happening in the state of Idaho,” she claimed. “They’re going after pastors in Idaho right now and saying, ‘Unless you oversee, participate in a homosexual wedding, we’re going to put you in jail.'”

Porter was referring to a case in Couer D’Alene in which the owners of a for-profit wedding chapel filed a lawsuit claiming that they could face decades of jail time for refusing to perform same-sex marriages, which did not turn out to be at all true.

Josh Duggar: If Christians Can't Discriminate Against Gays They're Victims Of Discrimination

"Natural marriage has been clearly defined over the years," Duggar, speaking in the vernacular of the religious right, said.

"Right now in America there is an agenda to silence people of faith, those who hold a dissenting opinion," Duggar told CNS. "That’s not what America was founded on. America was founded on respect, tolerance, and really not discriminating against people based on their religious convictions."

In other words, not allowing Christians to discriminate against gay people is "discriminating against people based on their religious convictions."
,,,
"I think what we have to realize is this is only the beginning of a larger discussion, and what's really at stake here is the American family,' Duggar said, promising to continue to fight against the rights of same-sex couples regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.

End Times broadcaster: God will send a ‘fireball from space’ to destroy Earth if gay marriage is legalized

“I believe I am speaking under the unction of the Holy Spirit,” Wiles explained in a perfectly reasonable tone. “I’m telling you there will be swift, sudden and devastating consequences for the United States of America. America will be brought to its knees, there will be pain and suffering at a level we’ve never seen in this country.”

“The word that I hear in my spirit is ‘fire.’ I do not know if it refers to riots or looting or war on American soil or a fireball from space. I simply know that a sweeping, consuming fire will come across the United States of America and this country will be charred and burned.”

High court: Tool of tyrannical elitist prejudice

A decision degrading the natural right of marriage, endowed by the Creator, to the status of a fiat right, fabricated by government, will be unconstitutional on the face of it, because it disparages an antecedent right, retained by the people, which disparagement is explicitly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution’s Ninth amendment. Under present circumstances, the decision will also invite conflict on account of the openly flaunted prejudice of two of the justices participating in it.  [Referring to the demand that Ginsburg and Kagan recuse themselves.]

[,,,]
If the United States Supreme Court presumes to impose any redefinition of marriage on the states, respectively, or the people, without addressing the issue of unalienable right it involves, with reasoning that respects God-endowed right (which is the logic by which the American people asserted, and still claim to possess and exercise, sovereign authority over themselves), the Court’s decision will be an attack on the very foundation of constitutional government, of by and for the people of the United States. It will be a high crime and misdemeanor that effectively dissolves the just bonds of government between and among the states, and among the individuals who compose the people of the United States. It will therefore be just cause for war.

Like the Dred Scott decision that heralded the onset of the first Civil War, the Court’s action will bring the nation to the brink, whence “nothing but confusion and disorder will follow. …” If the justices do not tread carefully, their temerity could very well set in motion the death throes of what is still supposed to be their country. “Forbid it, Almighty God!”

Joyner: SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling Could Bring About The Mark Of The Beast

Rick Joyner sent out an email to members of his Oak Initiative today, warning that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality would be a "dress rehearsal" for the Mark of the Beast.

"Few events in history have so remarkably fit the biblical scenario of this mark as the potential U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage," he declared. "As bizarre as this may sound, this is an uncanny parallel to the biblical prophecy."

Seriously look at the rhetoric they endorse, "creates a constitutional crisis", "this country will be charred and burned", "a high crime and misdemeanor".  They advocate for war and the "coming end-times" based on a false analogy to Roe v Wade and a flawed belief that marriage is being redefined.  Is it no wonder that fear has over taken rational thought?

'Personhood' Advocate Plans New Strategy: Plant Anti-Reproductive Justice Language in Local 'Ordinances and Codes'

Hats off to Liberal America for highlighting this important shift in strategy to circumvent Roe v Wade.

Jones authored the Colorado personhood Initiative, which was rejected by voters. The anti-choice advocate stated in an op-ed that since “the current strategy of statewide ballot measures may have reached its limit…it is time to switch up the strategy.”

That strategy, stated Jones, comes in the form of municipal policy measures, since everything from “local health and building codes to local law enforcement such as child abuse prevention” can be written to prevent abortion clinics from operating. Since these codes and policies are written by legislators, and not voted on by citizens, Jones could effectively circumvent the democratic process using this strategy.

Personhood USA may be convinced that granting rights to fetuses “terrifies the pro-abortion foes,” but it is the sneaky tactics suggested by Jones that should have Women’s Reproductive Justice advocates on guard.

'Personhood' Advocate Plans New Strategy: Plant Anti-Reproductive Justice Language in Local 'Ordinances and Codes'

Huckabee Urges States To Ignore Rulings On Marriage Equality, Abortion Rights & Church-State Separation | Right Wing Watch

And we are not a theocracy dumb-ass,,,

In an interview with Iowa-based conservative talk show host Steve Deace on Monday, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee repeated his recommendation that governors simply ignore the Supreme Court’s decision to let stand lower court rulings legalizing marriage equality in several new states, adding that state governments should have also ignored Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court rulings banning school-sponsored prayer.

When Deace pressed him on the “maelstrom” that would be set off if state governments simply ignored court rulings on marriage, Huckabee responded that it was in fact the courts that have set off a “constitutional crisis” by ruling in favor of marriage equality.

“I look back to 1973,” he said, referring to the year in which Roe v. Wade was decided, “and I’m wondering what would have happened if the two branches of government, the executive and the legislative, simply said, ‘We appreciate your opinion, court, but now if states wish to empower that, I guess they can do so, but until that happens we’re not automatically going to go killing 55 million babies over the next 40 years.’”

In cases such as Roe and rulings in favor of marriage equality and church-state separation, Huckabee said, elected officials should have said, “Well, the courts have spoken and it’s an important voice, but it’s not the voice of God and the Supreme Court isn’t God” and simply ignored the courts’ rulings.

Huckabee Urges States To Ignore Rulings On Marriage Equality, Abortion Rights & Church-State Separation | Right Wing Watch

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 8)

Q::  Hobby Lobby and the other cases coming before the SCOTUS (the Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp) are arguing that this violates their religious beliefs because certain birth control technologies [in their view] cause abortions; but that is very much against the consensus of the medical community.  Does that make any difference in terms of the likelihood of them prevailing whether or not their empirical claim is true?

A straightforward statement by Lynn, stick to the RFRA and the evidence of this case, and all will be as it should:

"I don't think it is likely the SCOTUS will decide this on the basis of competing scientific claims.  And by competing claims I mean there are 95% of the people on the side that say that these methods of birth control do not induce abortion, they do not prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.  But the 5% of scientist/biologists on the side of the Right-to-Life movement, for example, they will argue that the science supports the idea that IUD and the morning-after pill and everything they don't like, is in fact abortion inducing, an abortifactant."

An important point is made here by Lynn, Roe v. Wade (1973) is still the law of the land. 

"I don't think the SCOTUS will honestly resolve that scientific question.  I think they are going to say as long as this is a medical procedure which is permitted by law, we haven't overturned Roe v. Wade (although the same people on the opposite side of us in the HL case would love us to repeal Roe v. Wade).  But as long as it is a right, that can be attained by people, I think they will look and see whether you can make a credible case, that a company has a corporate conscience, and that conscience is more important than the moral decision making of individual women."

"That's where the rubber will hit the road, they will interpret the RFRA.  I they interpret it broadly and beyond the scope of anything that was intended, then HL will win.  If they interpret it the way all the evidence suggests (and my personal experience of this statute indicates is true) then people like us will prevail."