Election 2020 Set to Pit Gay Rights vs Religious Rights
Why is it that the Dems are so intent in removing so many of our constitutional protections? In one of the recent democrat presidential debates, presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke boldly stated that if elected to the presidency he was going to confiscate your guns. “Hell yes,” he exclaimed. That’s not enough for this leftist wacko, he is coming after churches next.
Beto virtually proclaimed that gay rights trumped religious liberty. During the debate, O’Rourke claimed that if he is elected president, he will work to eliminate the tax-exempt status for churches that hold traditional views of gender and sexuality. Of course, O’Rourke is not the only candidate taking aim at religious groups that defend traditional beliefs about marriage and gender. His Democratic rival Cory Booker promised to punish religious organizations that do not celebrate same-sex “marriages,” though he did not specify the elimination of their tax-exempt status, however, the overt threat is clear.
“We knew back in the 2016 election cycle that liberals were specifically targeting religious rights and liberties,” stated one Catholic prelate who prefers to remain anonymous. “For faithful Catholics, this is a growing concern,” he continued. Koinonia News editorial staff notes that there is ample evidence from what have seen happens to Churches when secular governments seek to control doctrine and mandate politically correct teachings; just look at the tragic example of China. There, two churches—one that submitted to God first and foremost, and one that submitted to the godless communist government first and foremost—coexisted for decades. In exchange for its loyalty to communism, the politically correct state church received government protection and little perks here and there. The true Church, however, continues to be persecuted and oppressed.
According to our source, the continuing saga in China does not paint a pretty prospect for American Churches should Socialist Liberals have their way.” Just last year, the Vatican caved and extended its official recognition to the politically correct church’s state-appointed bishops, leaving the longsuffering leaders of the true Church out in the cold. The moral is this: when governments can exert power over the Church—whether determining doctrine, picking bishops, or enforcing certain rules—the preaching of the Gospel suffers. Under the current democrat threats, the Church will no longer have the freedom to proclaim their message unhindered.
With the continued rise in popularity of President Trump, the likelihood that O’Rourke or another Socialist candidate will soon be in the position to fulfill this promise is not likely. However, his attitude is gaining popularity and emphasizes the necessity that people of good faith shake off their complacency, and turn out on Election Day.
In order to understand what is going on in the minds of O’Rourke, Booker, and others on the left, it is helpful to review what transpired in the four years since Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision that made same-sex “marriage” legal across the nation. the focus after Obergfell has been on “identity theory“ creating from appearance to be an ideological cult. Identity theory claims that each person’s most basic responsibility—and his only path to happiness—is to explore and live out every element of his “identity,” his desires, as freely as possible. This claim is not merely a lifestyle choice: it has the force of religious power and scope. This ideology is becoming so pervasive that it cannot tolerate the existence of rival cults or creeds, even at the expense of the civil rights of others.
Liberal Democrats have not pulled their plan to treat traditional religious organizations as second-class out of thin air. As noted above, the roots of their goals are in the oral arguments in Obergefell. In his argument for legalizing same-sex “marriage,” then-solicitor general Donald Verrilli openly admitted that tax-exempt status for religious colleges and universities that uphold traditional views of marriage was “going to be an issue.”
Of course, in the days following Obergefell, LGBT activists denied any “slippery slope” claiming fallout the decision would not affect religious liberties, and that everyone was now free to practice marriage however they wished. They pointed to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell, in which he assured religious Americans that they would still be able to “advocate” for their belief in marriage as being between one man and one woman. They assured religious and conservative Americans that the decision in Obergefell would in no way compromise our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, speech, and conscience.
However, in the ensuing four short years, religious Americans have been forced to realize that this was simply a lie. Justice Kennedy’s word “advocate” is dangerously vague. In the wake of Obergefell, religious Americans have found that, while they may indeed still retain the right to think that marriage is defined only as a lifelong relationship between one man and one woman, they have less and less freedom to speak of and act on this belief. Chief Justice John Roberts warned about this in his dissent from Obergefell:
The majority rule graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage… The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses… Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.
Americans across the nation are now coming face to face, in increasingly brutal ways, with the consequences of Obergefell’s cavalier attitude towards the First Amendment. They have dealt with years of litigation and public abuse from state officials, personal attacks from the state attorney general, and illegal bans from the public square. American business owners, non-profit leaders, and artists have found themselves pushed out of business, called Nazis and haters by the media, and forced into extended, costly legal battles because of their belief that marriage is the union between one man and one woman.
Now, in 2019, two Democratic presidential hopefuls feel that it is in their best interest as candidates to explicitly advocate punishing religious organizations that uphold traditional views of marriage.
Do not be deceived, the Socialist Left will do anything to remove or limit religious civil liberties. This is their game plan. Sure, they will exclaim that “No such thing would ever be permitted in America!” They’ll even cite The Establishment Clause of the constitution which promises religious groups that they will be free to exercise their beliefs without undue government interference! These are the same spluttered assurances we heard in 2015. That turned out to be a smokescreen.
Be warned: the same cult that has compromised our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, conscience, and religion will not hesitate to compromise the Establishment Clause. Faithful Catholics would do well to consider the possibility that churches upholding orthodoxy will face active government opposition and penalties—the least of which, as our brothers and sisters in China have learned, would be the loss of their tax-exempt status. Each and every single constitutional right is precious. Once taken away they may never be regained.
At this point in time, we are witnessing the Democrat-controlled US House of Representatives doing all they can to subvert the constitutional separation of powers, by taking away rights of due process, the right to face one’s accusers, and even denying the right to present evidence and defense. This is being done in the name of Impeachment, but the process they are employing is subverting the rule of law.
Stand up, speak out and defend your rights and liberties.
Just say no and #VoteDemOut.