The Latest First Amendment Threat

A few days ago, a couple of co-workers were talking about how the president of Chick-Fil-A had come out against gay marriage and commenting that this might be detrimental to their business.  I didn't think much about it at the time, although it did kind of annoy me that everyone seemed to think it was so inappropriate for Chick-Fil-A's management to express any opinion on gay marriage but no one seemed to care that Starbucks has listed support for gay marriage as one of its core business values.  Why is it controversial to express an opinion in favor of traditional marriage but not controversial to express an opinion in favor of gay marriage?

It's been pretty common knowledge for some time that Chick-Fil-A is owned by devout Christians, and gay activists have been attacking it for years.  I heard months ago that there was a movement to try to shut down the Chick-Fil-A on the University of Maryland campus.  I found that to be pretty appalling, but at the same time boycotts are a legitimate way to express disagreement.  Many Christians, for example, decided to boycott Starbucks following its very public endorsement of "marriage equality."  While I don't go out of my way to buy from Starbucks, I don't really see the point of a boycott.  If I were to refuse to use the goods and services from any company whose political and social opinions I disagreed with, my list of approved companies would be pretty small.  I don't agree with Wal-Mart's support of ObamaCare.  I don't agree with Target's refusal to allow the Salvation Army bellringers in front of their store at Christmas time.  I don't agree with Costco and Google's large donations to Democratic candidates.  But by boycotting all of them, I am merely inconveniencing myself while doing nothing to promote my own beliefs (and possibly making other people think I'm an ideological nutcase in the process).  Politics doesn't have to enter into every buying decision, and it is not necessary to be in full agreement with the beliefs of a company's management in order to enjoy its products.

However, the Chick-Fil-A issue has gone far beyond a mere boycott of a company over a political disagreement.  First of all, the media has been quite dishonest in reporting about this issue, as Mark Hemingway from the Weekly Standard blog notes.  Numerous media outlets claimed that the owner, Truett Cathy, condemned gay marriage and cited an interview with the Baptist Press; however, in this interview the owner said nothing to attack gay marriage or supporters of gay marriage but merely reaffirmed his belief in the Biblical definition of marriage and the family.  He was asked a question about it and he responded honestly.  He also stated that he did not consider Chick-Fil-A to be a Christian business but that it tried to operate according to Scriptural principles.  Cathy was a bit more harsh in condemning attacks on the traditional family in some statements in a radio interview which were subsequently uncovered, but he still did not single out gays or gay marriage for criticism.  Yet Time magazine's headline said that Cathy's comments were "homophobic."  Apparently, supporting traditional marriage and the family equates to homophobia.  Sad.

Even worse, the mayor of Boston has now threatened to deny Chick-Fil-A a business license to operate in the city solely based on Cathy's supposedly anti-gay comments.  This is a truly chilling development and speaks volumes about how intolerant "tolerance" can be.  The government has absolutely no right to deny a business the right to operate based on the personal beliefs of the owner.  This is religious discrimination and a significant attack on freedom of speech.  It would be one thing if Chick-Fil-A were violating non-discrimination laws in who they hired or in how they treated customers, but there have been no such allegations.  If the government can shut your business down simply because it doesn't like your opinion (even if that opinion is unpopular), there is no true freedom of speech.  Even The Boston Globe, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, has condemned the Boston mayor's threats as dangerous to the First Amendment.  And now the Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel is issuing similar threats against Chick-Fil-A (while at the same time welcoming Louis Farrakhan to his city).

Along with the recent story about the photographer who was found guilty of discrimination for declining to photograph a gay commitment ceremony, this is further confirmation of what I wrote a couple months ago about the real goal of the gay rights movement.  Its real goal is not "marriage equality," but rather to force full societal approval of homosexuality.  Religious people who refuse to go along with this agenda must be marginalized and silenced at all costs.  If recent news is any indicator, the gay agenda is succeeding beyond its wildest dreams.  In ten years, we have gone from being a country where gay marriage was a fringe idea to being a country where anyone who opposes gay marriage is an anti-gay bigot.

I admire the fact that Chick-Fil-A's management refuses to be intimidated by the bullies on the Left (both activists and politicians).  Most businesses would have capitulated long ago.  I admire the fact that they stand up for their beliefs and always have, even to the point of being closed on Sunday.  Mike Huckabee has proposed August 1st as Chick-Fil-A Day and is encouraging people who are upset about the Boston mayor's comments to go to Chick-Fil-A on that day.  My wife and I are doing so and would encourage readers of this blog to do the same!  This is a way to show your support for the First Amendment and for a good family-run company that gives away large amounts of money to charity.  And the fact that you will get a great-tasting chicken sandwich doesn't hurt either!

Religious Liberty, Part II

This article from National Review Online about a sexual orientation discrimination case in New Mexico is a must read.  In the case, an Albuquerque photography studio run by a husband/wife team declined to provide photography for a same-sex commitment ceremony based on the religious beliefs of the owners.  The state's Human Rights Commission found Elane Photography guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2008, and last month the state's Court of Appeals upheld this ruling. According to the Court, the studio provides services to the public and therefore has no free speech protections under the First Amendment.

I think this ruling represents a grave threat to religious liberty.  As the article points out, photography is a highly personal, creative, and artistic pursuit that is entirely different from the services of a restaurant or department store.  And art has long been recognized by the courts as a personal form of expression protected under the First Amendment.  In fact, in their initial e-mail request for photography services, the lesbian couple asked for a photographer to help "celebrate" their commitment ceremony.  Clearly, forcing a photographer to lend her artistic skill to celebrate something to which she has a conscientious objection is nothing less than government coercion and a violation of the photographer's right of free speech.  And for that matter, would it not be in the lesbian couple's best interest to find a photographer that was supportive of their ceremony, assuming that their goal was to get the best photos possible of the event?  What couple would want someone taking pictures of their wedding who was compelled to do so against her will?  There is little doubt that the couple bringing the suit could have easily found a first-rate photographer who would gladly have helped to celebrate their ceremony, but instead they chose to pursue a political agenda that involved trying to shutter a business whose owners disapproved of their lifestyle choice.  In fact, this whole case provides support for my previous argument that the push for same-sex marriage is really about forcing societal approval of homosexuality. 

The logical result of this ruling is to effectively bar all individuals with traditional religious beliefs (Christians, Jews, and Muslims, to name a few) from the wedding photography business, since they cannot in good conscience celebrate same-sex marriage.  And, as the article notes, what about writers, videographers, graphic designers, clothing designers, and others?  Logically, under this decision they would also be forced to enter into contracts to offer their services on behalf of causes with which they disagree.  Already, in Kentucky a T-shirt company has had legal action brought against it for refusing to make shirts for a gay pride parade.  If this ruling holds, discrimination laws in certain cities would force marketing agencies to work for political organizations like the Communist Party USA.  If free speech means anything at all, it should mean that individuals and businesses have the right to make their own decisions when it comes to personal and creative services governed by private contracts.  And no one should be forced to use their marketable skills on behalf of a cause that violates their conscience.  If this ruling stands, it is a severe blow to both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

"Al-Qaeda, Yes; Defense of Marriage Act, No

Well, it's been a long time since I've posted here, but tax season is now over and I hope to start posting regularly again now that I have some free time! At the moment I am working on a long article on the topic of gay marriage which I hope to have ready to post in the next week or two.

In the meantime, I wanted to share a great link to an article by Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online entitled "Al-Qaeda, Yes; Defense of Marriage Act, No." McCarthy exposes the hypocrisy of the law firm King & Spalding, which has willingly defended all sorts of the vilest people from terrorists to murderers and rapists, but is now refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. The same is true of Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, who presides over a Justice Department whose lawyers have willingly volunteered their time to assist Al-Qaeda terrorists but refuse to defend DOMA, a law passed by large bipartisan Congressional majorities a mere 15 years ago, signed by President Clinton, and supported by a majority of the American people.

Of course, the greatest hypocrisy of all comes from gay rights activists, led by the Human Rights Campaign, who used threats and intimidation to get King & Spalding to drop their legal defense of DOMA. For more on these threats see this article from The Weekly Standard's website. The gay rights lobby claims to stand for tolerance, understanding, and diversity of ideas. Except they have no tolerance for anyone who stands in their way. Their goal is to ensure that DOMA gets no reasonable defense in court whatsoever, and they will do whatever it takes to silence their opponents.

The Constitutional "Right" of Gay Marriage

I expect all of my readers know that federal judge Vaughn Walker issued an opinion this past week overturning California's Proposition 8, an amendment to the state's constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman which was passed by the state's voters in 2008. There are two important questions here that should be distinguished. The first is whether this ruling by Judge Walker is constitutionally sound, and the second is whether gay marriage should be permitted under the law.

With regard to the first question, the evidence is overwhelming that the Walker ruling was neither impartial nor constitutionally sound. Judge Walker is not only gay, but also has a long-term male domestic partner whom he would presumably be eligible to marry under his own ruling. This shows a personal involvement in the case which should have led him to recuse himself. The judge's conduct during the entire trial was so blatantly prejudiced against the defense that the outcome was a surprise to no one. Ed Whelan, a constitutional law expert who writes for National Review, has listed the numerous actions Judge Walker took throughout the trial that show his extreme bias (click on the links in the article for more detail about each point.) Less than 30 pages of the 135-page ruling have anything remotely resembling a legal argument; most of the ruling is devoted to "findings of fact" and a summary of the trial proceedings. Most of those supposed "findings of fact" are not facts at all, but simply express the judge's opinion that Proposition 8 stigmatizes homosexuality. Whelan also lists out the key legal arguments in the thin "conclusions of law" section, which mostly consist of sweeping and highly controversial claims about the nature of marriage with no supporting evidence or historical precedent to back them up. Whelan's brief parenthetical commentary demonstrates how utterly flimsy those arguments really are.

Essentially, the ruling boils down to the central claim that it is discriminatory for same-sex couples to not be able to marry. While I disagree with this argument, I can understand how it could be used to justify a law permitting same-sex marriage. But it can't be used to justify imposing such a law through the court system. The court isn't permitted to make law; it's only permitted to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. Therefore, to make this ruling, the court is at least implicitly inventing a constitutional civil right for gay marriage. And we all know the Constitution does not guarantee such a right. If we are going to consistently follow this line of reasoning (anybody who wants to marry has a constitutional right to do so) then I don't see how the courts can avoid imposing legalized polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality as well. To me, this ruling is less about gay marriage than it is about unelected judges making law from the bench. Liberals believe that because the Constitution is a living document, judges can invent new provisions to the Constitution whenever they feel it serves their definition of justice. Roe v. Wade was the same thing. There's no constitutional right to abortion, but the courts invented it because they didn't like existing law. It is very dangerous for courts to write laws because they are unelected and appointed for life and thus are unaccountable to the people.

The second key question is whether gay marriage should be legalized. To me, this issue is not really about equality, despite the claims of supporters. Gay couples already have full rights and freedom to pursue whatever lifestyle they want. No one is keeping them from having sex or buying a house together or having a commitment ceremony. A lot of states (including California) have civil unions or domestic partnership laws, which provide these couples with virtually every financial benefit that a married couple has. I am generally supportive of such laws. No, the issue here is not equality. The issue is forcing society to give their stamp of approval to the gay lifestyle. Gay rights activists want to force society to accept and approve of what they are doing, and in so doing to fundamentally redefine the institution of marriage that has existed in virtually every culture from time immemorial as the union between a man and a woman. Judge Walker's opinion is a frontal assault on the entire family structure, not just marriage. He claims that it is "beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes" and slams gender distinctions as outdated "artifacts."

Princeton professor and legal scholar Robert George recently wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on the topic of same-sex marriage. While the major point of Dr. George's article is to argue that the legislature and not the courts should settle the question of gay marriage, he also makes some excellent points about the nature of marriage itself which I will quote from at length:

"Lawyers challenging traditional marriage laws liken their cause to Loving v. Virginia (which invalidated laws against interracial marriages), insinuating that conjugal-marriage supporters are bigots. This is ludicrous and offensive, and no one should hesitate to say so.

"The definition of marriage was not at stake in Loving. Everyone agreed that interracial marriages were marriages. Racists just wanted to ban them as part of the evil regime of white supremacy that the equal protection clause was designed to destroy.

"Opponents of racist laws in Loving did not question the idea, deeply embodied in our law and its shaping philosophical tradition, of marriage as a union that takes its distinctive character from being founded, unlike other friendships, on bodily unity of the kind that sometimes generates new life. This unity is why marriage, in our legal tradition, is consummated only by acts that are generative in kind. Such acts unite husband and wife at the most fundamental level and thus legally consummate marriage whether or not they are generative in effect, and even when conception is not sought.

"Of course, marital intercourse often does produce babies, and marriage is the form of relationship that is uniquely apt for childrearing (which is why, unlike baptisms and bar mitzvahs, it is a matter of vital public concern). But as a comprehensive sharing of life—an emotional and biological union—marriage has value in itself and not merely as a means to procreation. This explains why our law has historically permitted annulment of marriage for non-consummation, but not for infertility; and why acts of sodomy, even between legally wed spouses, have never been recognized as consummating marriages.

"Only this understanding makes sense of all the norms—annulability for non-consummation, the pledge of permanence, monogamy, sexual exclusivity—that shape marriage as we know it and that our law reflects. And only this view can explain why the state should regulate marriage (as opposed to ordinary friendships) at all—to make it more likely that, wherever possible, children are reared in the context of the bond between the parents whose sexual union gave them life.

"If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.

"A veneer of sentiment may prevent these norms from collapsing—but only temporarily. The marriage culture, already wounded by widespread divorce, nonmarital cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing will fare no better than it has in those European societies that were in the vanguard of sexual “enlightenment.” And the primary victims of a weakened marriage culture are always children and those in the poorest, most vulnerable sectors of society.

"Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown."

As a Christian, I believe that marriage was instituted by God at creation, and therefore is holy and sacred. However, as Dr. George points out above, I think it's important to note that marriage has great societal benefits above and beyond its religious significance. Most societies outside of our country's Judeo-Christian heritage have also recognized marriage as a valuable institution throughout history. Even if you are not a Christian, you should be able to appreciate the positive effects marriage has had on our culture -- protecting women through commitment vows, protecting children by providing a stable family structure with a mother and a father, encouraging responsibility and discouraging promiscuity, etc. Our country's strong marriage culture and traditional family values have provided the moral framework for a healthy, free, productive, and prosperous society.

It's important to understand that gay rights activists, who have been pushing for gay marriage for decades, hate Judeo-Christian values because they stand for traditional marriage and a traditional family. If you don't believe this, just read Judge Walker's opinion, which claims that opponents of gay marriage are "irrational bigots." If same-sex marriage becomes law, then it's only a matter of time before people who believe in the traditional definition of marriage and the family (you know, that it is actually healthy for kids to grow up with a mom and a dad) will be persecuted for hatred and discrimination. It already happened in California in the wake of the Prop 8 vote, when newspapers published the names and addresses of people who donated money to Prop 8 and those people's families, homes, and businesses were targeted and threatened. It has already happened in Washington, DC, where Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to shut down because of their refusal to place children into gay adopting families. It has already happened in Canada, where religious ministers can be fined or jailed for committing a hate crime if they preach from the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. If gay marriage is legalized, then justices of the peace or ministers who refuse to officiate gay marriages will likely face severe legal penalties for discrimination, as will anyone who refuses to recognize or acknowledge the legitimacy of same-sex marriages.

Thus, in the name of tolerance, the government is redefining an institution that existed thousands of years before said government even came into being, and is forcing all Americans to accept and acknowledge this redefinition or face accusations (and possible criminal charges) of bigotry and discrimination. If Judge Walker's ruling stands and his claims about the family become widely accepted, they spell the end of traditional marriage and the traditional family as we know it. Marriage and the family have been a key foundation of our country ever since its inception, and if that foundation crumbles I don't see how our society as we know it can long survive. Major cracks have already developed in that foundation as divorce rates have skyrocketed and out-of-wedlock births have soared, but if Judge Walker has his way, it's only going to get worse.

Obama's "Safe Schools" Czar

One of the things a lot of people don't know about the Obama Administration is how radical Obama's czars are. These czars occupy cabinet-level positions in his administration, but are not confirmed by the Senate (like normal cabinet officials) and mostly sneak under the radar thanks to a largely compliant media. Van Jones, Obama's Green Czar, was already forced to resign for being a "9/11 truther" (someone who believes the Bush Administration caused the 9/11 attacks), for being a self-described Communist, and for making numerous racist comments. Then there's John Holdren, who has co-authored a book arguing for forced abortions and mass sterilizations to control population growth. And there's Cass Sunstein, who has recently advocated a ban on hunting and giving animals the right to sue their owners in court. This is not a joke.

One of the czars who has most recently come under scrutiny is Obama's "Safe Schools" Czar, Kevin Jennings. This guy wants to make our schools anything but safe. Jennings has spent his life relentlessly forcing the gay agenda on young children. As the former head of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, he gave a speech at their convention a few years ago urging his fellow teachers to promote homosexuality to school children "before the children have a chance to be prejudiced by their parents and churches" and using profanity to describe Christians. The GLSEN, Jennings' organization, has promoted all sorts of outrageous workshops and literature promoting sexual techniques to public schooled kids as young as 12 -- too outrageous for me to go into detail about in this post. Jennings wrote the foreword to a book called Queering Elementary Education. I think you can guess what that book is about. As a teacher, Jennings admits violating the law by failing to report an incident where a high school sophomore who was sexually involved with an older man came to him for advice, and he simply told the kid to use safe sex techniques. Jennings has publicly stated he was inspired by a man who was a leading promoter of pedophilia and defender of the disgusting pedophilia group NAMBLA. Jennings has admitted to sneaking gay promotion in the back door of the schools in the name of "safety." Jennings now has millions of tax dollars at his disposal to promote his radical agenda in public schools around this country. You tell me: is this the hope and change we were looking for? Kevin Jennings needs to be fired immediately! And the president who appointed him should be held accountable.