Liberal Compares these Black Pastors to Criminals for Opposing Gay Rights

It wasn’t that long ago that President Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed homosexual marriage. You and I know that they did this to get elected.

How things have changed. To oppose same-sex marriage is now thought to be a criminal offense. Michael McCann of Sports Illustrated, a writer with a legal background who specializes in sports law, compares people who oppose same-sex marriage to convicted criminals. If homosexuals had their way, any person who opposes same-sex marriage would not be permitted to hold public office.

Judges overturn state constitutions and legislatures that defend marriage between a man and a woman.

Every state that has voted on same-sex marriage has upheld traditional marriage. This has not stopped judges from nullifying these votes in various states. For example, voters in Michigan “passed a marriage amendment in 2004 that made it unlawful to conduct or recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ in the state. It was passed with 59 percent of the vote, or nearly 2.7 million ballots cast in the favor of the measure.”

Homosexuals have tried to hitch their wagon to the civil rights moment. It’s been working because blacks have been silent. But no more:

“A coalition of black pastors filed an amicus brief in court on Wednesday asking that it overturn a lower court’s decision that declared Michigan’s marriage amendment unconstitutional.

“The Thomas More Law Center filed the brief on behalf of 110 African American pastors throughout Michigan and Ohio, who represent millions of Christians and other religious groups throughout the state.

As previously reported, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, nominated to the bench by then-president Ronald Reagan, struck down Michigan’s same-sex ‘marriage’ ban this past March, declaring that the state’s constitutional amendment violates the federal constitution.

“‘Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage,” he wrote. ‘Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law.’”

Are these black pastors criminals? According to Michael McCann they are.

If we stripped all laws of their religious source, there wouldn’t be any enforceable laws. With God out of the picture, there is no such thing as marriage. Evolution knows nothing of marriage. The institution of marriage is God’s design.

What is the source of law for this judge? He does not say. The shifting sands of public opinion? That’s a legal and moral weak reed that can have unforeseeable bad consequences.

It can’t be science or biology since consistent same-sex sexuality is contrary to all that we know of biology and physiology. Homosexuals borrow the definition of marriage from the worldviw that condemns it.

Who or what defines “equal protection under the law”? On what basis is there law? There was a time when homosexuality was against the law and same-sex marriage was unheard of. The law changed, and it could change again. In fact, any law can change if there is no foundation for it. The day could come when judges like Bernard Friedman could be denied the right to exist. It’s happened before.

Arthur Leff (1935–1981), who taught law at Yale Law School, concluded that, given atheistic or no-God assumptions, there is no way to prove that “any particular act, no matter how horrible, is normatively wrong.” Leff stated:

“I will put the current situation as sharply as possible: there is today no way of ‘proving’ that napalming babies is bad except by asserting it (in a louder and louder voice), or by defining it as so, early in one’s game, and then later slipping it through, in a whisper, as a conclusion.”1

In Leff’s analysis, good for agnostics and atheists to deal with, “‘good’ becomes just a function of nosecounting.”2

George Orwell wrote, “For two hundred years we had sawed and sawed and sawed at the branch we were sitting on. And in the end, much more suddenly than anyone had foreseen, our efforts were rewarded, and down we came. But unfortunately there had been a little mistake. The thing at the bottom was not a bed of roses after all, it was a cesspool full of barbed wire.”3

  1. Arthur Allen Leff, “Economic Analysis of Law: Some Realism about Nominalism,” 60 Virginia Law Review (1974) 454–455. []
  2. Leff, “Economic Analysis,” 455. []
  3. George Orwell, “Notes on the Way” (1940). []
Previous post

Shocking Development . . . University to Teach the Constitution

Next post

Governments Use Regulatory Laws to Nullify First Amendment