Same-Sex “Marriage” is Becoming the Established Religion

By Frank Turek Published on April 3, 2015

The Bill of Rights guarantees Americans the free exercise of religion while forbidding Congress from establishing a single religion. But the media and courts seem to be establishing a new religion nonetheless. Same-sex marriage (SSM) is the new official religion, which means it must be a religion of the sword.

Exhibit A: the controversy in Indiana. A determined and vocal minority from the religion of SSM is bullying and cutting down traditionalists who need a law that would allow them to be left alone. This clash of orthodoxies has opposing values with moralists on both sides demanding their rights. Rather than preserving the free exercise of competing religious claims, however, one is becoming established at the expense of the other.

But the two views are hardly parallel. One requires compulsion, the other doesn’t. One side says, “everyone must celebrate my same-sex marriage” (a moral claim). The other side says, “God or my conscience prevents me from doing so” (also a moral claim). Can anyone see any middle ground here? There is none. The state must either compel adherence to the new religion or preserve religious freedom, but it can’t do both.

Governors in Indiana, Arkansas and several other states see the need to protect religious liberty for a very good reason — it is under attack. The scales have tipped decidedly against the free exercise of traditional religion — against the right of Christians, Muslims, Jews and anyone else who can’t celebrate the new established orthodoxy.

Forget tolerance. This is well beyond tolerance. Now, if you don’t agree to celebrate same sex marriage, the established religion will commence an inquisition and, without a trial, punish you for heresy. That’s why this legislation is necessary. Florists, bakers, photographers, real estate agents, Internet CEOs, and speakers like myself have all discovered personally that the people who say they are fighting for “tolerance” are often the most intolerant. In the name of “inclusion and diversity,” those of us who have a different view are being excluded, and even fired and fined because we won’t violate our beliefs to satisfy the overbearing clergy of the religion of sex.

A few years ago Cisco and Bank of America fired me as a training consultant because I had Christian beliefs about sex and marriage even though my beliefs were never expressed on the job. When a homosexual manager at Cisco found out on the Internet that I had authored a book giving evidence that maintaining the natural definition of marriage would be best for society, he couldn’t tolerate me and demanded that I be fired. An HR executive canned me within hours without ever speaking to me. This happened despite the fact that the leadership and teambuilding programs I led always received high marks (even from the homosexual manager!).

While I’m probably in the minority, I believe that people have the right to choose with whom they do business. In other words, I support Cisco’s right to fire me. My problem, as I explained here, is that they falsely claimed to be “inclusive and diverse” when they are anything but that. Their orthodoxy is just as closed and narrow as the most rabid fundamentalist church.

My friends David and Jason Benham agree with freedom of association and the rights of businesses as well. When members of the new religion learned that the evangelical Benham brothers were violating orthodoxy by being pro-life and pro-natural marriage, an inquisition began to get the Benhams fired from their TV show. Executives from HGTV ultimately caved to the demands of the dogmatic high priests and cancelled the show, which was already in production. When Jason Benham told a TV reporter that HGTV had the right to fire them, the reporter’s jaw dropped. The Benhams are actually tolerant! So are most Christians (although there are some bad apples in every group).

But compulsion by government is another thing entirely. People are getting the wrong impression about these state laws to protect religious liberty. This one graphic shows how these laws work. You’ll notice that they do not give businesses permission to deny anyone service at a retail establishment. No one is doing that now, and you wouldn’t be in business very long if you did. The free market would see to it. Moreover, those who actually follow Jesus want to be with and serve unbelievers as Jesus did. We just can’t advocate events or ideas that go against Christ’s teaching on marriage (Mt. 19:4-6).

The truth is, these laws are not swords but shields. They are intended to shield dissidents from the SSM authorities who would use the sword of government to force dissidents to participate in ceremonies that go against their religion or conscience. In other words, the laws are designed to prevent discrimination against the dissidents, not enable them to discriminate against the new orthodoxy.

America has a long history of successfully balancing religious and moral beliefs with other important interests. For example, even when military service was involuntary, we still made room for conscientious objectors who did not want to carry weapons. If we can allow people to exempt themselves from defending the country — which is the most important responsibility our government has — we can certainly allow people to exempt themselves from participating in same-sex wedding ceremonies!

What compelling government interest is there to force someone to support a same-sex wedding? It’s not like there is a shortage of people willing to do so. If a 70 year-old grandmother who is a florist can’t arrange flowers at your same-sex wedding, why not just go to someone else who would be happy to do it? Why don’t we ever hear about traditionalists suing gay business owners for refusing to print up anti-gay marriage fliers? “Tolerance” is a one-way street to the religion of sex.

Should a Muslim caterer be forced to do a same sex wedding? Should a Muslim T-shirt maker be forced to print gay pride T-shirts or those that satirize Mohammad? (The religion of sex would prefer we not use Muslims in our questions; stick to Christians please.)

There is no compelling government interest to force a business to do such things. That’s why the religion of sex must distort the facts and throw a temper tantrum to get government to compel people to violate their conscience. (Their approach reminds me of what bad preachers write in the margin of their sermon notes: “Logic weak here — pound pulpit!”)

This is what happens when you have a narrow religious orthodoxy enforced by the sword. It’s a zero-sum game that the heterodox lose. The new established religion chooses the sword of government compulsion over the freedom of religion and conscience. Do you?

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • William Maddock

    Come on, Frank. You know better than to use simple logic on these people. It’s beyond them. All they know and see is what they want and everyone else’s wishes and rights be damned.

    • Jack Braun

      Truly it is beyond them. The bible says that unregenerate man cannot understand spiritual things. Even worse yet, God gives them over to a delusion.

  • Tim in Big D

    ^^^THIS^^^ is exactly why LGBTs need to be added to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Problem solved.

  • greenpointguy

    Bigger question: what kind of uptight jerk wants to cr*p on the joy of someone’s wedding?

    • Angela Hemphill Hogan

      Hmmm…politely refusing to go against one’s beliefs which they derive from a higher authority than themselves (God’s Word) makes them “uptight jerks” who WANT TO “cr*p on the joy of someone’s wedding”? Wow, that sounds like a slanderous strawman meant to support a very weak argument. Besides, sending people to businesses in order to ambush them and put them out of business for not violating their sincere beliefs–now that sounds like some uptight jerks to me.

      • greenpointguy

        Looking a couple in the eyes and watching the hurt register on their faces when you “politely” tell them they aren’t worthy of your support? Good times.

        • Slappy the Squirrel

          Looking business owners in the eyes and gleefully destroying their livelihoods because they want to be left alone? Good times.

          • greenpointguy

            Right, because that’s what happened. Oy vey.

      • greenpointguy

        In the most famous case, Baronelle Stutzman, she denied service to long-term customers, not to someone who ambushed them. Name one incident where someone sought out a company to ambush them. One.

        • William Maddock

          New Mexico. They sought out a business run by a photographer that they knew in advance would refuse, and dragged them into court in order to destroy their business for refusing to participate in celebrating sin.

          In the Stutzman case, that customer did not sue until pressured into it by a brain-dead puppet of an attorney general and the radical Christian haters of the homosexual agenda who had already sued her sight unseen because they heard that she refused, not because of any possible harm to the customer, who, if left alone by the haters, would simply have sought out another source and been done with it. Take off your blinders and start seeing facts for what they are.

    • Slappy the Squirrel

      Your question presupposes that Christians are initiating this behavior of “ruining” weddings. Generally, they are simply minding their own businesses and same-sex people seek them out. To turn the question around, what kind of “uptight jerks” demand someone celebrate an event and punish them when they do not? Why in the world would they want unwilling participants who are not enjoying the event to be involved? Do they not want to involve people who would happily celebrate their event?

      • greenpointguy

        In the most famous case, Baronelle Stutzman, she denied service to long-term customers, not someone who sought them out to destroy them. You have a victim complex.

        • Slappy the Squirrel

          Yet your initial comment cannot be construed likewise? Got it.

        • Jack Braun

          You are quite the accuser, arent you?

        • William Maddock

          In the Stutzman case, that customer did not sue until pressured into it by a brain-dead puppet of an attorney general and the radical Christian haters of the homosexual agenda who had already sued her sight unseen because they heard that she refused, not because of any possible harm to the customer, who, if left alone by the haters, would simply have sought out another source and been done with it. Take off your blinders and start seeing facts for what they are.

  • Kathy Verbiest Baldock

    Same-sex marriage is not a “new religion.” Where do you come up with this silliness? It IS an extension of the equal protection clause of the Constitution which has reversed former non-inclusive decision nine time to become MORE inclusive and protective of civil rights for minority groups.

    New religion? My goodness. Marriage is a civil right under the Constitution (Loving v Virginia, Redhail v Zablocki). LGBT people are a class of people legally. So, when you have a class of people being denied a civil right, that gets fixed by the Constitution.

    There are SEVERAL Christian denomination and a growing number of Christians in general who are in support of same-sex marriage.

    Oh my goodness, the “sword of government compulsion.” I am thrilled to live under the guidance of the Constitution where Christian who cannot seem to police themselves for fairness and equality, are forced to be better Christians by law. If only those folks would do so out of the Spirit of God rather than the “sword of government compulsion.”

    • William Oosterman

      Kathy – you obviously do not have a clue what the article is all about. Keep stabbing us with your sword of gov. – keep burning us at the stake.

      • Kathy Verbiest Baldock

        Google me — I have a bit more than “a clue.”

    • William Oosterman

      There are SEVERAL Christian denomination and a growing number of Christians in general who are in support of same-sex marriage. ( Kathy – they are no longer Christian. They do no get to redefine Christian. The Bible ( God) defines right and wrong and what is a Christian. So it is no surprise to us who still believe the Bible that ALL denominations that have accepted homosexuals are now in emergency mode- they have lost so many people – the real believers – that they are closing churches all over. In Canada the three lame-stream churches are now selling off unused buildings. There are so many for sale they almost give them away at times. It is what happens when a church rejects God and His Word. )

    • William Maddock

      Point out to me—in the Constitution and its amendments, not in Judicial fiat—where the term “marriage” is even mentioned. This is not the Constitution supporting a minority group, it is the Constitution being folded, spindled, and mutilated in order to make it appear that the Constitution supports profligate and perverse sin—which it very clearly does not.

      The only thing that the Constitution and its amendments have to say that is even related to this latest judicial fiat fad is, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

      So, the only legal law-making power under the Constitution is barred from making any law either promoting or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE of religion, yet idiots like you want to claim that its the exact opposite of what is reality and then go and express disbelief that people who know better get upset with you.

      • Kathy Verbiest Baldock

        Civics lesson — the Constitution and its intentions and extensions are interpreted as it is challenged by court cases that make it to hearings at the Supreme Court level. THAT is what those 9 justices do — they hear cases and interpret them according to the Constitution and the precedences that precede the test case.

        By the way, I am not an idiot. We may disagree, but that does not make me a fool or dimwit.

        • William Maddock

          So, basically, you have no real ammunition against my argument except to claim that opinion is law and law is opinion. Typical.

          • Kathy Verbiest Baldock

            I wrote a 500 page book — if you would like my thoughts, they are WELL laid out there — Walking the Bridgeless Canyon. If you don’t care for a well thought out rebuttal, ignore it. Typical.

          • William Maddock

            Unless you can show how the Constitution itself supports your argument, and not how some black robed oligarch elitists claim that what they say is what the written words in the Constitution mean even when their opinions diametrically oppose those written words, then, no, I am not interested.

          • Kathy Verbiest Baldock

            Typical.

          • William Maddock

            What’s typical is that you have not given a well thought out rebuttal, but have only rubber stamped the claims of judges that they decide what the law is because they say they do. Not a very powerful argument, so one I won’t bother with.

          • Kathy Verbiest Baldock

            All of Chapter 10 on marriage in “Walking the Bridgeless Canyon” –10, 425 words of very well thought-out rebuttal.

            If you would like to read an entire book on the topic, I suggest “From Disgust to Humanity” by Professor Martha Nussbaum, doctor of law and philosophy at University of Chicago. I suspect you would also call her arguments weak, however.

            Education is a powerful tool to not only understanding, but empathy.

          • William Maddock

            I know exactly what’s been going on here. I am not the one who needs a civics lesson. It’s not my fault that you wasted all that time and effort to write 500 pages that could have been condensed to “Because they say so.”

            That’s not on me. That’s on you.

            Since you refuse to provide any reasoning whatsoever out of the actual Constitution and its Amendments, but insist upon relying on black robed, unelected, oligarchical activists who violate the Constitution in virtually every decision they write (by relying on the OPINIONS of other judges rather than what is actually written in the LAW that is the actual Constitution and its Amendments), I will not be wasting any more time on you or on your foolishness.

          • Kathy Verbiest Baldock

            I have come to the same conclusion as the fruit of this — on to productive work, for both of us. Whatever you are called to do — do well and to His glory.

  • Jack Braun

    Sadly the freedom they feel is at the same time God having already handed them over to their own desires. Their physical eyes see well but they are spiritually without eyes. They glory in the net of their own soul’s destruction.

    Know this Christians – despair the day when God gives you your worldly heart’s desires. Repent before its too late, if it isn’t already too late.

  • William Oosterman

    God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness

    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

    24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
    ( seems pretty clear – God gives them OVER to this sin, society disintegrates. The end result is the last paragraph. And that is where the Western World Is

    • William Oosterman

      Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness ….. God gave them up to vile passions…. God gave them over to a debased mind….

  • William Oosterman

    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness ….. God gave them up to vile passions…. God gave them over to a debased mind….the original sin was what? 1. They did not give God glory . 2. They were not thankful End result: western civilization destroyed.

  • William Oosterman

    Kathy: There are SEVERAL Christian denomination and a growing number of Christians in general who are in support of same-sex marriage. ( Kathy – they are no longer Christian. They do no get to redefine Christian. The Bible ( God) defines right and wrong and what is a Christian. So it is no surprise to us who still believe the Bible that ALL denominations that have accepted homosexuals are now in emergency mode- they have lost so many people – the real believers – that they are closing churches all over. In Canada the three lame-stream churches are now selling off unused buildings. There are so many for sale they almost give them away at times. It is what happens when a church rejects God and His Word. )

Inspiration
Jesus, ‘Thou Art Fairer Than the Children of Men’
Charles Spurgeon
More from The Stream
Connect with Us