This has come up before. Apparently in this country there is a war on Christianity:
The promotion of homosexuality? If you are a Christian, then you believe that God makes us who we are. It follows that if a Christian is right for condemning a person for being homosexual, then Jesus is to blame for making that person a homosexual in the first place. What kind of person does that make Jesus, and how are Christians to reconcile their anti-homosexual biases with their faith in Jesus? See the following which somebody posted on Facebook:
So, what does Pat Buchanan have to do with all of this? I’m glad you asked:
The Supreme Court has ordered the de-Christianization of all public institutions in what was a predominantly Christian country. Christian holy days, holidays, Bibles, books, prayers and invocations were all declared to be impermissible in public schools and the public square.
Secular humanism became, through Supreme Court edict, our established religion in the United States.
And the American people took it.
Why was there not massive civil disobedience against this anti-Christian discrimination, as there was against segregation? Why did Congress, which has the power to abolish every federal district and appellate court and to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not act?
Wait! Is Pat Buchanan advocating massive civil disobedience? Imagine that.
All of which gets me to wondering what form this “massive civil disobedience” would take. Maybe something like this:
Pat. Pat! Apparently the “massive civil disobedience” has already started. Good work!
But wait. That second image above is prayer in a church in Ferguson, Missouri, and it’s all about an unarmed black kid being shot to death by a local policeman. It could be this is not what Pat has in mind. Oops! That last image shows Muslims praying. Definitely this is not what Pat had in mind. These Muslims, they’re not Christians. They’re not really Americans, are they.
Apparently this is what Pat had in mind all along:
Do the states have the right to outlaw same-sex marriage?
Not long ago the question would have been seen as absurd. For every state regarded homosexual acts as crimes.
This is amazing. This man once was employed writing speeches for the President of the United States.
Nevertheless, I feel I need to answer Pat’s statement: Yes, homosexual acts were once prosecuted as crimes in this country. That is to say, activities that involved nobody except the people committing the acts were treated as crimes. Activities of free citizens in this country, activities that created no excess noise, activities that destroyed nobody’s property, activities that did not rob anybody else of his own freedom of action, these activities were prohibited by law. And courts ruled these laws added nothing to the common welfare while at the same time restricting the rights of the people affected. These laws were struck down by courts, the only effect being government control over people’s private lives was lessened. Conservatives all over this country were probably cheering as these oppressive laws came down. Please wait for the echo to die down.
But wait! These laws did protect something. These laws protected the sensitivities of certain people in this country. Some people were offended by the actions of other people, actions not normally visible from the street. These actions, by the very thought they were going on, these actions offended some people. The sensitivities of some people, the prejudices of some people, were offended. The law had a real public benefit. These laws protected prejudice and intolerance. And the courts ruled these laws were oppressive and needed to come down. What a travesty!
According to Pat.
Of course it did not end there. Yes, you guessed it. There still remained laws on the books that created two classes of citizenship. The marriage preferences of heterosexuals (excluding polygamy and polyandry) took preference over the preferences of homosexuals. Homosexuals desiring the same legal benefits of marriage enjoyed by heterosexuals, namely heterosexual marriage, were denied.
Now the courts are beginning to come around and to open the legal benefits of marriage to those desiring homosexual marriage. And what is being insulted is the sensibilities, the prejudices, of certain people in this country. And Pat is objecting.
Last week, the Supreme Court refused to stop federal judges from overturning laws banning same-sex marriage. We are now told to expect the Supreme Court itself to discover in the Constitution a right of men to marry men and of women to marry women.
No, Pat, the Constitution does not mention men marrying men and such. It only contains a clause stating:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I am no Constitutional scholar, but I believe this section of the 14th Amendment states the law should not create different levels of citizenship, different levels of protection under the law.
We used to have multiple levels of citizenship in this country, Pat, and it took a civil war to get the issue straightened it out. You talk about civil disobedience? Guess which side is going to win this one.