From the Rev. Mark Harris, senior pastor at First Baptist Church in Charlotte, in response to “Another step in inexorable march” (Oct. 7 editorial):
Another step in an inexorable march?
Millions of voters might view it more as the heavy boot of judicial tyranny trampling religious liberty. The recent refusal of the Supreme Court to take up marriage amendment cases has allowed the will of exactly two judges to overturn the freedom of millions of voters in five states to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Despite the editor’s assertion that this usurpation of legislative and voter action will not mean that “a special interest group won some new handout at the expense of someone else,” that is exactly what it means. Embracing this interpretation of the Constitution puts the government’s view of homosexuality squarely in opposition to the view of those major religions that have upheld not only the sanctity of natural marriage, but the sanctity of monogamy and all other aspects of the marriage relationship.
Never miss a local story.
As such, every facet possible regarding holding a wedding can come under judicial scrutiny. Those practicing homosexuality have just been declared a special interest group, and make no mistake, this will come at the expense of someone else, namely, those who hold beliefs that prevent them from participating in the wedding ceremony for a homosexual couple.
Consider: Aaron and Melissa Klein, who lost their business, Sweet Cakes Bakery in Oregon. Two lesbians filed a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industry after the Kleins declined to bake their wedding cake. The Kleins were found by the board to have committed a “discriminatory” act, and litigation continues. The tolerant left used social media and boycotts to attack not only the Kleins but the vendors with whom they did business. Watch the Klein’s story on YouTube.
Other bakeries and florists in states that have redefined marriage have had similar action taken against them, and in every case have lost in court. Furthermore, once the needle defining marriage has been moved to fit the broad view espoused by Senator Kay Hagen in a recent debate that “government shouldn’t tell people who to love,” there becomes no real definition of marriage. Is man inherently monogamous? No? Then why not allow polygamy? Belgium has already allowed civil unions of three individuals. Pandora’s box is truly on the verge of being opened, and making fun of those who recognize that fact, as the Observer editors did in such a juvenile way, does not prevent the consequences.
Despite the high-handed tone of the editors, support for same-sex “marriage” is dropping as citizens become aware of the real conflict between redefining marriage and religious liberty. Inexorable march? Hardly.