Monday, September 22, 2008

--but don't take my word for it!

It's always sad when people don't do their homework.

Allow me a shout-out to Jonathan Trapp of the Concerned Women for America.

In my ever-increasing meanderings on the internet, I had the misfortune to come across this delightful group, who intend to "protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens-- first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society, thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation." 

Sounds like a nice, tidy plan for world domination. Let's just hope that Pinky doesn't screw things up once again.

I admittedly did not poke around the site much, because I was distracted by this gem:

"The United States of America was founded with the intention that men could not be forced by the government to believe in a particular faith or worship in a particular manner. Indeed, the very reason the pilgrims sailed to the new lands was to find a place where their religious liberty would be protected. This founding principle was integrated into the language of the First Amendment to the Constitution and has remained a staple of freedom.

But now, religious liberty is being encroached upon. Decisions like the one in California (in Re Marriage Cases) infringe upon religious liberty because they mandate that priests, pastors, clerks to the court, and all other positions that perform marriage ceremonies are obligated to marry same-sex couples, even though the individual disagrees with the practice."

The editorial continues from there, however does not offer any more compelling evidence to support the thesis of religious persecution. (For those interested, it can be found at If you don't come back, we'll avenge your death!)

Something that never ceases to amaze me is the blatant ignorance of the pesky differences between legal and religious marriage. And this is ignorance in action.

The California law deals with--one guess!-- legal marriage.

But that would take some sort of mind-reading skill to learn, right?

If it pleases the court, I'd like to bring your attention to Document A, the California ruling Re Marriage Cases. Granted, this took skimming through over one hundred pages of legalese to find, and that's time that you, Jonathan Trapp, just don't have-- but never fear because I found the pertinent passage for you!

"--affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs." (p117)

(The full document can be found at It's actually quite interesting-- very comprehensive and lively.)

Is it wrong of me to gloat like this?

No comments: