Does Faith = Hate? - Gay marriage and religious liberty are uneasy bedfellows - by Rod Dreher

In CERC

This summer's Windsor decision from the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, but it did not declare a constitutional right to gay marriage.  Yet even Maggie Gallagher, the country's most tireless and high-profile opponent of same-sex marriage, now believes such an outcome is a foregone conclusion.

"It's clear that the courts are going to shut down the marriage debate and impose gay marriage uniformly," she says.  "There is not yet a unified sense of where we go from here, except for this: there is an accelerating awareness that the consequence of marriage equality is going to be extremely negative for traditionalist Christians."

Interviews with legal scholars, activists, and other social and religious conservatives involved in the fight against same-sex marriage confirm this grim outlook.  In the courts, and in the court of public opinion, the momentum towards same-sex marriage has been clear.  A consensus is emerging on the right that the most important goal at this stage is not to stop gay marriage entirely but to secure as much liberty as possible for dissenting religious and social conservatives while there is still time.

To do so requires waking conservatives up to what may happen to them and their religious institutions if current trends continue — and Catholic bishops, say, come to be regarded as latter-day Bull Connors.

Will religious conservatives be seen as no better than racist bullies in the emerging settlement?  Despite what you haven't heard — the news media's silence on religious liberty threats from same-sex marriage is deafening — this is not slippery-slope alarmism.  The threat is real.

Robin Fretwell Wilson is a University of Illinois law professor and religious liberty expert.  Though she takes no position on same-sex marriage, Wilson argues that religious freedom is enormously important in this fight.

"Everybody knows that [church] sanctuaries are going to be out of the reach of same-sex marriage laws," she says.  "The whole fight is over religiously affiliated organizations and individuals who are in government employment or out in commerce."

Religious schools and charities could suffer penalties such as the loss of government funding or state credentials necessary to operate.  They could also have their tax-exempt status taken from them.

The latter actually happened to a group of New Jersey Methodists in the 2007 Ocean Grove case.  That state court decision held that the New Jersey government was permitted to withdraw a special tax exemption, tied to public access, from a church-owned pavilion that declined to host two gay commitment ceremonies.  What happened next, says Wilson, set an ominous precedent.

"The local taxing authority then removed the local exemption for ad valorem taxes for the pavilion, and then billed them for back taxes," she says.  "That tax benefit is one of the most substantial benefits religious groups receive from the government.  Although the group had elected a local tax status tied to public access, if state and local governments use this as a guide for how to deal with religious organizations that don't accept same-sex marriage, that could be a big deal."

Individual religious believers also stand to lose their jobs or have their businesses take to court.  Christian florists, photographers, and bakers have already been sued or punished under nondiscrimination law for refusing to provide wedding or commitment-ceremony services to gay couples.  State courts in New Mexico have upheld a $6,000 fine levied against a wedding photographer who declined to shoot a lesbian commitment ceremony.  Civil litigation underway in Colorado pits a gay couple against two Christian pastry chefs who refused to bake a cake to celebrate a wedding the pair held in Massachusetts.

In these cases, state nondiscrimination laws did not carve out religious liberty exceptions.  Though many observers focus only on Supreme Court rulings, Wilson says instances like these highlight the importance of marriage battles in state legislatures.

"When same-sex marriage gets dropped out of the sky, it doesn't drop onto a blank slate, but into the existing substrate of state anti-discrimination laws," she explains.

This belies the claim by marriage-equality activists that same-sex marriage is merely a simple expansion of marriage rights and that no one who opposes it will suffer undue hardship.

But if gay activists understate the threat same-sex marriage poses to religious freedom, chicken-little traditionalists sometimes overstate their vulnerability.

Wilson points out that the courts have expressed support for what they deem reasonable accommodation of religious belief, even when that belief clashes with civil rights claims.

"The idea that this is all of a sudden some newfangled thing where we're having to think through for the very first time how religious organizations are having to deal with civil rights norms is just not true," says Wilson.

Wilson and others engaged in this debate have suggested detailed legislative remedies attempting to balance gay rights and religious liberty for the common good.  She concedes, however, that the 1960s civil rights template is of limited use in thinking through religious liberty vis-à-vis homosexual rights.  Those laws were written in a time in which no one could have imagined them being used to question the gender structure of marriage.

Until now, the debate has focused on the question, "What is marriage?"  But henceforth it is coalescing around the question, "What is homosexuality?"  Or, to be more specific:  is homosexuality the same thing as race?  The future of religious freedom depends on how the courts, and the country, answer that question.

To gay marriage supporters, homosexuality is, like race, a morally neutral condition.  Opponents disagree, believing that because homosexuality, like heterosexuality, has to do with behavior, it cannot be separated from moral reflection.  As Gallagher put it in a 2010 paper in Northwestern University's law journal, "Skin color does not give rise to a morality."

The problem for traditionalists is that the sexual revolution taught Americans to think of sexual desire as fundamental to one's identity.  If this is true, then aside from extreme exceptions (e.g., pedophilia), stigmatizing desire, like stigmatizing race, denies a person's full humanity.  To do so would be an act of blind animosity.

Though she appealed in that same law journal paper to the magnanimity of gay rights supporters, Gallagher acknowledged that their confidence that homosexuality is no different from race would make compromise morally indecent.  Americans, she wrote, "do not draft legislative accommodations for irrational hatred."

This is largely why the Supreme Court majority struck down DOMA: the 5-4 majority saw it as motivated only by an unconstitutional desire to stigmatize and injure homosexuals.  Though Chief Justice John Roberts's dissent highlighted the majority's explicit endorsement of the right of states to define marriage, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that this was only because his anti-DOMA colleagues didn't think they could get away with going further — for now.

That's why some leading traditional-marriage activists insist that the movement must continue to press arguments on the marriage question itself, even as religious liberty takes center stage in their political and policy strategizing.

The Heritage Foundation's Ryan T.Anderson is one of the top theoreticians of the traditional-marriage movement.  Anderson has become a high-profile advocate of applying natural law thinking to the marriage debate.  His view, in short, is that traditional marriage recognizes anthropological truths about human nature and therefore is critical to building stable societies in which to rear children.  Accepting same-sex marriage, he says, requires a philosophical shift that erodes the solid ground on which traditional marriage stands.

"The other side's lead talking point is that opposing gay marriage is the same as racial bigotry," he says.  "If this goes unresponded to, it will be no surprise if a majority of Americans eventually decide that they're right.  We're not there yet, but if that happens, the religious liberty protections we are able to lock in now will be very fragile."

Both Congress and the Supreme Court are sensitive to political reality.  Anderson says the court's refusal to constitutionalize gay marriage in its two rulings this term indicates that the justices are not willing to get out too far ahead of the country on this issue.

"Justice Scalia's dissent said it's just a matter of time until the other shoe drops," Anderson says.  "If it looks like the pro-marriage people have given up, the Supreme Court will be more likely to move quickly in usurping authority from citizens and redefining marriage for the entire country.  If Congress thinks we've surrendered, they will conclude that there's no point in extending religious liberty to bigots."

In Washington, a prominent religious conservative lobbyist sees Democrats increasingly energized around advancing gay rights, and Republicans "scared of the entire issue."

"They'll talk about these things behind closed doors and wonder where they are leading, but it's only a small group that's prepared to do anything about it right now," says Russell Moore, the new head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.

Moore, a 42-year-old pastor and theologian, has drawn favorable notice for taking a nuanced approach to culture-war issues.  He sees his task as not only communicating grassroots Evangelical concerns to political elites but also helping grassroots Evangelicals understand how radically circumstances have changed.

"The problem is that Evangelicals have taken a God-and-country, Moral Majority stance for so long, one that assumes the rest of the culture shares our values, and that it's only small groups of elites out there who are out of step," Moore says.

"I tell them you have to understand the mindset of the other side," he continues.  "They see this as the equivalent of the civil rights movement.  If the Christian definition of marriage becomes the equivalent of KKK ideology, then religious liberty will be very hard to defend."

This is why both the Windsor ruling and the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling that overturned anti-sodomy laws portend so much ill for marriage traditionalists.  Twice in the last decade, the Supreme Court found that laws restricting gay rights were based entirely on animus and served no rational purpose.  If the justices apply this reasoning to the core of marriage law, religious conservatives may well find little asylum outside the walls of their churches.

Hence the urgency of marriage activists on religious liberty.  Though same-sex marriage is almost certainly the wave of the future, the country isn't there yet.  In states where marriage equality is still under contention, traditionalists could take advantage of this divide to negotiate a settlement that both sides can live with — one that protects both religious institutions and religious individuals.  Time is on the gay-rights side, but its more pragmatic leaders may be persuaded that achieving basic marriage equality now is worth granting substantial protections to religious dissenters.

This is hard to do in a culture where religious conservatives are increasingly demonized for their beliefs about homosexuality.  And not just religious conservatives.  In August, Dartmouth withdrew its job offer to African Anglican bishop hired to run a campus spirituality and ethics center because of his past opposition to gay rights.  Though Bishop James Tengatenga, a widely respected and effective advocate for peace and reconciliation in his native Malawi, had since evolved into a gay-supporting liberal Anglican, the fact that he hadn't always been one cost him his job.

Granted, a New Hampshire liberal arts college is not America.  But stories like this help vindicate the hardline view of Princeton's Robert George that there is "no chance of persuading [gay-marriage proponents] that they should respect, or permit the law to respect, the conscience rights of those with whom they disagree."

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission chairman and gay-rights advocate Chai Feldblum agrees with George.  The former Georgetown law professor has written sympathetically about religious concerns, but he concludes that the clash between gay rights and religious liberty is a "zero-sum" affair.  People who don't see that are fooling themselves, she contends.

So, with the front in the gay-marriage culture war shifting to religious liberty, where do traditionalists stand?

George writes that they have to win this battle entirely or be crushed everywhere, as segregationists were, and for the same reason: their views will be deemed too abhorrent to be tolerated.  On this view, preserving religious liberty cannot be separated from preserving traditional marriage.

Wilson, a religious-liberty scholar, believes that there is room for compromise at the state level to protect religious liberty, and there are good prudential reasons for both sides to do so — but time is running out for the faithful to make deals in state legislatures.

Anderson, the think-tank philosopher, contends that the battle over the meaning of marriage is increasingly difficult but can be won.  In any case, he says, it must be waged to prevent an eventual rout for religious liberty. 

And Gallagher, the activist, no longer believes winning — that is, stopping gay marriage — is possible but insists, like Anderson, that conservatives cannot afford to surrender and accept their opponents' judgment of them as bigots and haters.

"Refusing despair is a powerful political weapon.  If we don't keep fighting, we are not going to be tolerated," says Gallagher.  In Windsor's wake, she is working to build legal and political institutions to help traditionalists endure coming hardships.

"The question we have to face is this:  did the Supreme Court give us Roe v. Wade, or Brown v. Board?" she says.  "If it's Roe, we lose, but our views of marriage will still be respectable.  But if we let it be Brown, we're in big trouble."

Reading the Natural Signs (On Pope's interview) - by Hadley Arkes

In TCT

The philosopher Thomas Reid drew us to the “natural language” that underlies all language and makes translation possible. Without the benefit of words, we can tell the difference between a look of friendly approval and a menacing look, portending danger. In the same way, we have a natural sense that informs our recognition of things in the arts, in paintings and architecture. Even peasants, untutored, can tell the difference between a hovel and a palace. We count on that natural sense of things as we seek to cultivate a certain awareness of things that are higher and lower as we recognize the difference between a cathedral and a hamburger stand. 

The Church has made its rich life marked with those signs, whether in the dignity of the Mass, the burning of incense, and yes, the sacraments of bread and wine. Pope Francis has clearly understood the importance of those signs as he has made a visible gesture of taking a bus and standing in line, rather than calling forth the trappings of office. It appears that his point was readily – and widely – understood. What was equally clear was his own awareness that, with these simplest of gestures, he was teaching at every moment.

What came as quite astonishing then in that recent, bizarre interview, was that a man so fully aware of himself as a teacher could have been so casual, so heedless of how his words would be misunderstood. At first I thought that he had fallen into the mistake of speaking off the cuff again in his folksy way. But then it turned out that he had added material to the interview, and that the transcript had been reviewed carefully as it was translated and prepared for publication. This was no inadvertent sally.

It was all the more curious then that when he turned to the most central and burning moral issues of abortion and the taking of life, or sexuality and marriage, he would not say anything that marked the place of these issues in the fuller sweep of the concerns and teaching of the Church. He would say merely that “we cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage, and the use of contraceptive methods” – as if the Church had ever insisted only on them. 

John Paul II had taught the centrality of that question of “the human person”:  just who counts as a human being, whose hurts and injuries matter? We seem to be engulfed these days by a relentless wave of denial that human lives are destroyed in abortion, and an insistence that not all human lives really “count” or claim our respect. There is not a day in our politics, or in our ordinary lives, in which we don’t encounter the blithe willingness to put that question of “the human person” safely out of mind.

It is a lesson, it seems, we need to teach every day, “coming in and going out.” And if that issue were to be placed, as the Holy Father says, in the proper “balance” of things, what other issues would be given an offsetting, higher weight?   

It is evident that the weighting for this good man is the weighting given by the priest, living close to his flock. The need there is “to heal the wounds and warm the hearts of the faithful. . .[and] walk through the dark night with them.” The center of it all is “the saving love of God,” and that, he says, “comes before moral and religious imperatives.” One friend, in a commentary, took the pope to be saying that we must come to an understanding of Jesus before we can absorb the teaching of the Church on those moral questions. 

But if that is the line conveyed here, it surely does cut against the most strenuous efforts of the faithful to teach against the currents of the culture for the past forty years. The teaching on abortion has been a teaching of natural law, a weave of embryology and moral reasoning. One doesn’t have to be Catholic to understand the teaching of the Church. But now the pope will be taken to confirm the facile argument of the Kennedys and Bidens, that the position of the Church is grounded in religious doctrine and we may not rightly impose our “religious beliefs” on others.            

In a speech just last Friday, to medical professionals, the pope affirmed the teaching on abortion, grounded in science and moral reasoning. But I’m afraid that the refined corrections and restatements may no longer matter. For a deeper “sign” has been given, and many people are now confident, with a telling wink, that they know what the pope “really means.” That sense of things promises to run deeper than the “clarifications” bound to come. 

The City Council in Topeka last week was considering a law rather like one that worked recently to punish photographers who refuse to take photos at same-sex weddings. One councilman, pushing this measure, announced that he was Catholic and gay – and that the pope was on his side. And when NARAL takes out an ad in the New York Times thanking the pope, that is another sign. 

The faithful have been disheartened; people hostile to the teaching of the Church have become buoyant. And as Pope Francis himself notes, spiritual “discernment” will require in part “reading the signs of the times.”

"Crime contra a humanidade" - Juiz Permite Ação Legal Contra Pastor por Oposição à Homossexualidade - por Wendy Wright

NOVA IORQUE, EUA, 23 de agosto (C-FAM) Um juiz dos EUA está permitindo uma ação legal de um grupo homossexual de Uganda acusando um pastor evangélico de “crime contra a humanidade.” O pastor americano está sendo acusado de violar as leis internacionais por falar contra a homossexualidade e discutir legislação com líderes de Uganda.

Scott Lively, advogado e escritor, dirige a lanchonete Solo Sagrado em Massachusetts onde cafés e Bíblias são gratuitas e onde os cultos de domingo ministram para pessoas que vivem nas ruas, viciados em drogas e outros. Em 2009, ele foi convidado para falar numa conferência em Uganda onde ele disse que a meta do movimento homossexual é “derrotar a sociedade com base no casamento e no lugar colocar uma cultura de promiscuidade sexual.”

A ONG Minorias Sexuais de Uganda (MSU) acusa Lively de incitar “perseguição” por meio de palestras públicas e de aconselhar os líderes ugandenses que introduziram legislação contra a homossexualidade. A MSU defende a aceitação legal e social de indivíduos lésbicos, homossexuais, bissexuais, transgêneros e intersexuais. Ela se opõe à legislação que fortalece as leis anti-homossexualidade.

O processo descreve vários eventos em Uganda, tais como uma batida policial no escritório da MSU. Lively não é mencionado uma “única vez dentro das muitas páginas da queixa que descrevem” esses eventos, disse o Conselho da Liberdade, o escritório de advocacia que representa Lively.

Um acontecimento que a MSU tenta ligar a Lively é o assassinato de David Kato, um co-líder do grupo. O processo não menciona que um prostituto homossexual confessou ter assassinado Kato por causa de um bate-boca com relação a pagamento. Ele foi condenado e sentenciado a 30 anos de prisão.

Se a MSU tiver êxito, qualquer pessoa “que insistir em opor-se a classificações especiais para homossexuais se tornaria uma criminosa dos direitos humanos internacionais,” Horatio Mihet, advogado de Lively, disse ao WND.

O processo tem como base a Lei do Delito Estrangeiro, uma lei federal que permite que os tribunais dos EUA tratem de casos sobre violações da lei de nações ou de um tratado dos EUA. O Supremo Tribunal recentemente decidiu que a lei não se aplica a uma conduta que ocorreu fora dos EUA.

O processo parece ser um “golpe publicitário sem mérito com o objetivo de atormentar Scott Lively até fazê-lo ficar em silêncio,” um especialista legal disse o Friday Fax. O direito à liberdade de expressão nos EUA proíbe “tal absurdo” de responsabilizar legalmente alguém por tentar convencer as pessoas contra uma ideia oposta.

O litigante veterano comenta que isso poderá voltar a assombrar os ativistas homossexuais. A teoria da MSU atrairia processos contra “ativistas homossexuais que estão tentando reprimir seus próprios oponentes políticos e culturais em países estrangeiros.”

Em sua decisão, o juiz Michael Ponsor descreveu os líderes e legisladores ugandenses como “co-conspiradores” com Lively. Ponsor disse que algumas autoridades consideram que “perseguição” com base na orientação sexual e identidade de gênero “constitui um crime contra a humanidade que viola as normas internacionais,” mas é questionável se viola as leis dos EUA.

O juiz Ponsor virou notícia em junho quando sua primeira novela publicada, um romance de suspense legal encenado em Massachusetts, foi lançada. Ponsor originalmente aspirava ser um escritor, mas depois de duas novelas sem êxito reorientou seus escritos quando foi nomeado juiz.

“Em algum ponto percebi que os juízes são legisladores não eleitos da humanidade, e o que fazemos é simplesmente sermos criativos,” Ponsor disse numa entrevista.

Tradução: Julio Severo

Nozze gay in chiesa, a Londra si dovrà fare - di Gianfranco Amato

In NBQ

Lo scorso gennaio, quando Cameron spingeva l’acceleratore per l’approvazione della legge sul matrimonio gay, l’ex Arcivescovo di Canterbury barone Lord Carey of Clifton, denunciò il rischio per la Chiesa d’Inghilterra di vedersi costretta a celebrare le nozze di coppie dello stesso sesso. Per avvalorare le perplessità di ordine giuridico, lo stesso Arcivescovo inviò al governo un corposo parere legale dell’autorevole avvocato Aidan O’Neill QC. La replica del governo fu che il disegno di legge avrebbe previsto una disposizione di salvaguardia per tutelare la libertà di credo religioso, esentando espressamente le Chiese dall’obbligo di celebrare i matrimoni omosessuali. Con questa disposizione non si sarebbero corsi rischi di azioni legali. Parola dello stesso Cameron.

La legge, in effetti, è passata con la previsione di tale deroga, e lo scorso 17 luglio è stato apposto il royal assent, la ratifica da parte della Regina Elisabetta, nonostante la ferma opposizione della Chiesa d’Inghilterra, di cui, peraltro, la stessa sovrana è Capo con il titolo di “Supreme Governor”. In realtà, la Church of England ha un rapporto particolare con lo stato, che implica, tra l’altro, l’obbligo giuridico di celebrare matrimoni riconosciuti come validi dalla legge.

A giugno dell’anno scorso, l’allora ministro della giustizia Crispin Blunt aveva già sollevato il dubbio che la proposta di legge del governo, nonostante qualunque norma di salvaguardia, avrebbe inevitabilmente innescato un contenzioso legale. Si trattò davvero di una facile profezia, perché neppure un mese dopo la firma della Regina, e nonostante le sperticate rassicurazioni del governo Cameron, sono arrivati i primi guai.

Il ricchissimo Barrie Drewitt-Barlow e il suo partner Tony hanno già annunciato, infatti, che inizieranno un’azione legale contro la Chiesa d’Inghilterra, citandola in tribunale per costringerla a celebrare le proprie nozze. I due sono noti per essere stati, nel 1999, i primi componenti di una coppia omosessuale indicati in un certificato di nascita come genitori del figlio avuto mediante fecondazione assistita. Grazie a quel procedimento oggi Barrie e Tony, legalmente uniti in una civil partnership dal 2006, sono i papà di ben cinque figli.

Pretendono ora di sposarsi in chiesa, e per ottenere questo risultato hanno dichiarato che ricorreranno in tutti i gradi di giudizio fino alla Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo. C’è da credere che lo faranno, atteso che, peraltro, ai due non manca né l’ostinazione né i mezzi, come dimostra il fatto che abbiano donato più di 500.000 sterline (circa 715.000 euro) alla campagna per il riconoscimento del matrimonio omosessuale nel Regno Unito.

In un’intervista rilasciata il 2 agosto al settimanale Essex Chronicle, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow è stato assolutamente chiaro:

«L’unico modo che abbiamo per far riconoscere il nostro diritto a sposarci con rito religioso è quello di portare in tribunale la Chiesa d’Inghilterra, ed è veramente una vergogna che dei cristiani praticanti come noi debbano ricorrere a questo mezzo». «Il riconoscimento legale del matrimonio omosessuale», ha proseguito Drewitt-Barlow «è stato soltanto un piccolo primo passo in avanti, perché ancora non abbiamo ottenuto quello che vogliamo: è come se qualcuno ci avesse regalato un dolcetto incartato e ci avesse detto di succhiarlo». E dopo aver ribadito la propria ferma intenzione di «sposare in chiesa il proprio marito», lo stesso Drewitt-Barlow ha chiesto: «Non dovrebbero, forse, i cristiani essere i primi a perdonare, accettare ed amare?».

Questa vicenda rappresenta un’ottima lezione per tutti coloro che, in un tema così delicato, cercano di ridurre l’esperienza cristiana ad uno sdolcinato sentimentalismo, e per tutti quelli che ingenuamente credono di arginare i danni attraverso il velleitario tentativo di introdurre norme di salvaguardia, senza rendersi conto che così si apre la via ad un piano inclinato in cui la discesa diventa irrefrenabile. Si tratta, in realtà, di un tentativo patetico e disperato, come quello di arrestare una valanga a mani nude.

Una Legge Francese obbligherá i Provider Internet a Denunciare Chiunque Critica il "Matrimonio" Gay - di Leone Grotti

In BB

La ministra dei Diritti delle donne, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, ha presentato in Francia il suo progetto di legge per favorire "l'uguaglianza tra uomini e donne". Tra le tante disposizioni previste, ce n'è una che farà discutere: quella che obbliga i provider di internet (i corrispettivi francesi di Fastweb o Tiscali) a denunciare tutto ciò che su internet ha un contenuto sessista o omofobo.

DELAZIONE OBBLIGATORIA
La proposta è contenuta nell'articolo 17 del progetto di legge, già ridefinito "delazione per tutti". Oggi i provider di internet non sono responsabili di ciò che viene pubblicato sul web tramite i servizi da loro offerti. Se la legge passerà, i provider dovranno bandire espressioni che inneggino a crimini contro l'umanità o incitino all'odio. Per questo dovranno rendere disponibile agli utenti un dispositivo di allarme con il quale questi potranno segnalare al provider un contenuto offensivo. A questo punto, il provider «dovrà obbligatoriamente informare in modo tempestivo le autorità pubbliche competenti degli atti illeciti segnalati». Se non lo faranno, e questa è una delle novità, i provider stessi saranno ritenuti responsabili e perseguibili penalmente.

OMOFOBIA
Tra le «nuove linee guida» su che cosa significhi «incitamento all'odio», ecco la seconda novità, la ministra Vallaud-Belkacem ha inserito le espressioni «sessiste, omofobe e discriminatorie verso i disabili». Se passerà la legge, dunque, ogni frase pubblicata su internet ritenuta "omofoba" dovrà essere denunciata obbligatoriamente.

Vista la reazione sproporzionata della polizia francese e del governo Hollande alle proteste contro il matrimonio gay, con l'eclatante condanna a quattro mesi di prigione del giovane Nicolas, e l'interpretazione corrente del termine "omofobia", che comprende tutte le opinioni che si oppongono alla legge Taubira sul matrimonio per tutti, si può star certi che dal giorno dell'approvazione della "legge sull'uguaglianza tra donne e uomini" verranno denunciate decine e decine di persone al giorno in Francia come "omofobe". Dal matrimonio per tutti alla delazione per tutti.

Nota di BastaBugie: si è costituito il gruppo degli "Hommen", ragazzi con la maschera bianca che a torso nudo manifestano pacificamente la loro contrarietà alle nozze gay imposte dal presidente Hollande. Tra i tanti video presenti in internet ve ne proponiamo uno relativo alla preannunciata incursione durante la finale del torneo di tennis al Roland Garros. Si conclude con l'arresto di 11 giovani.

Da notare che quando le Femen sono entrate a seno nudo nella cattedrale di Notre Dame a Parigi nessuna di loro è stata arrestata nonostante la nudità e il vilipendio di un luogo religioso fortemente simbolico. Ricordiamo che le Femen sono approvate dal presidente Hollande e sono a favore dei matrimoni gay.
 

Ecco dunque il video con una delle tante azioni dimostrative spettacolari e pacifiche degli "Hommen"

 

Alcalde prefiere cárcel antes que celebrar la “farsa” del matrimonio gay

PARÍS, 02 Jul. 13 / 01:17 am (ACI/EWTN Noticias).- Jean-Michel Colo, alcalde del pequeño municipio francés de Arcangues, expresó su decisión de no casar a una pareja de homosexuales de acuerdo a la ley aprobada por el Gobierno de Francois Hollande, y señaló estar dispuesto a ir a la cárcel antes que celebrar una “farsa”.
“No doy lecciones, no estoy incitando a otros alcaldes que sigan mi ejemplo, pero no voy a ejecutar una ley ilegítima”, declaró Colo. “Mis siete concejales y yo estamos completamente de acuerdo en decir que no participaremos en esta farsa”, añadió la autoridad municipal, que agradeció los miles de mensajes de apoyo ciudadano que ha recibido hasta la fecha.
Según se informó, la decisión de no casar a una pareja gay que lo ha solicitado en su jurisdicción le puede acarrear hasta cinco años de prisión y una multa de 75 mil euros (100 mil dólares), además de la suspensión de su cargo.
Como se recuerda, en abril pasado, el portavoz de la plataforma Alcaldes por la Infancia (“Maires pour l’Enfance”), Franck Meyer, aseguró que cerca de 15.000 alcaldes franceses se negarán a “celebrar matrimonios entre dos personas del mismo sexo”.
Ante esto, el gobierno socialista de Hollande ha declarado que no concederá exenciones de consciencia a los funcionarios públicos que se nieguen a casar homosexuales. “Las leyes son aplicables en todas partes y no puede haber la menor violación de igualdad”, advirtió el ministro del interior Manuel Valls en respuesta a la resistencia de Colo.
Los homosexuales Jean-Michel Martin y Guy Martineau-Espel, a los que Colo se negó casar, presentaron el 26 de junio una denuncia contra el alcalde ante el procurador de la República de la localidad de Bayona.

L’emprisonnement de Nicolas suscite colère et incompréhension

In Famille Créthienne 

L’incarcération mercredi 19 juin de Nicolas B., un jeune opposant au « mariage gay », provoque la colère et l’incompréhension des sympathisants de La Manif pour tous, mais aussi au-delà. Des personnalités du monde politique (Hervé Mariton, Jean-Frédéric Poisson), intellectuel ou religieux, se sont exprimées dans les heures qui ont suivi l’annonce de son emprisonnement. 

De multiples initiatives de soutien 

Une vive et large réaction en soutien s’est également exprimée sur le Web. Plusieurs pétitions ont été mises en ligne, dont une par La Manif pour tous. Très vite est apparue aussi une adresse à laquelle on peut lui écrire. Enfin, de multiples rassemblements sont prévus pour réclamer la libération de Nicolas que beaucoup qualifient de « prisonnier politique » : La Manif Pour Tous, dans un communiqué du 20 juin appelle ainsi à un rassemblement pour demander sa libération immédiate et pour la cessation de la répression policière et judiciaire à l’encontre des sympathisants de La Manif Pour Tous. Le rassemblement est prévu vendredi 21 juin à 18h place du Panthéon, Paris 5e, au moment où le Président de la République interviendra à Science Po. 

Une arrestation musclée

La justice française a donc condamné Nicolas, 23 ans, à quatre mois de prison, dont deux fermes, pour acte de rébellion, après son arrestation. Le dimanche précédent, il avait manifesté avec 1 500 personnes devant les locaux de M6 à Neuilly pour accueillir François Hollande, avant de poursuivre la manifestation, de manière improvisée cette fois-ci, avec plus d’une centaine de personnes sur les Champs-Élysées. Vêtu de son sweat de La Manif pour tous, Nicolas a été poursuivi par des policiers et s’est réfugié dans le restaurant Pizza Pino, où il a été arrêté sans ménagement. Après une comparution immédiate pour acte de rébellion, il a été incarcéré à la prison de Fleury-Mérogis.

Ce jeune ayant contribué à la formation du mouvement des Veilleurs avait déjà été arrêté et condamné le 28 mai dernier en comparution immédiate à 200 euros d’amende pour « entrave à la circulation », « identité imaginaire » et « non dispersion après sommation ». Mais le parquet avait finalement fait appel de cette décision. 

 

Marie de Peufeilhoux

Columbus Bishop risks jail defending Catholic school that fired teacher for coming out as lesbian - by Kirsten Andersen

COLUMBUS, OH, May 3, 2013 (LifeSiteNews) – Columbus Bishop Frederick Campbell has weighed in publicly on the firing of a lesbian teacher from a diocesan high school, telling The Columbus Dispatch that Catholic schools have a “fundamental responsibility” to make sure their teachers uphold the teachings of the faith.

Gym instructor Carla Hale was fired from Bishop Watterson High School last month after an anonymous parent wrote to the Diocese of Columbus to complain that in an obituary for Hale’s mother, Hale was listed as a surviving family member together with her longtime lesbian partner, Julie. 

Hale signed a morality clause as part of her contract, affirming that “Catholic school personnel are expected to be examples of moral behavior and professionalism,” and acknowledging her employment could be terminated for “immorality” or “serious unethical conduct.”  Because the Roman Catholic Church holds homosexual behavior to be gravely immoral, the Diocese of Columbus found her to be in violation of her contract, and fired her.

In an exclusive interview with The Dispatch, Bishop Campbell said that while diocesan officials “don’t necessarily go looking for things like that,” Hale’s choice to publicly reveal her homosexual relationship left the diocese no choice but to terminate her employment.

Hale wants her job back and has filed a grievance with the teachers union, along with a formal complaint with the Columbus Community Relations Commission accusing the school of violating Columbus’s anti-discrimination ordinance. 

City law deems it is a misdemeanor for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on sexual preference, or to have policies which do so.  There is no exemption for religious organizations or other employers who object to homosexuality on religious grounds.  A guilty verdict carries penalties of up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.  The Community Relations Commission will evaluate Hale’s claim and decide whether to pass it on to the city prosecutor’s office.

Bishop Campbell told The Dispatch that the Church, the diocese and the school have been the targets of multiple threats since Hale’s firing. “It can be very intimidating,” Campbell said. “We are very concerned about that, but we have to remain steadfast in the teaching of the church.” 

A diocesan spokesman told The Dispatch that the diocese is paying for a Columbus police officer to be present on campus during school hours, and that local police have stepped up their patrols in the neighborhood. 

Canadian Archbishop warns U.S. of dire consequences of gay ‘marriage’ - by John-Henry Westen

MINNEAPOLIS, October 12, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – “You are summoned to a tribunal where you cannot have a defense lawyer and you cannot record the proceedings nor have a witness present. The people judging and prosecuting you have no legal qualifications. The accusation is ambiguous, having to do with ideas the state does not like. The penalties could include fines equal to several thousands of dollars, public recanting, and rehabilitation classes. You are a bishop. This is not China. This is Canada. The offense: explaining why homosexual relations are a sin.”

So began the address of Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast to St. Thomas University Law School Monday, October 8, where he laid out the alarming consequences of same-sex “marriage” from the Canadian experience.  

The archbishop was describing the true experiences of Calgary Bishop Fred Henry, who in 2005 was hit with a human rights complaint for proclaiming the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. The complaint was subsequently dropped by the plaintiff, who admitted that he only filed the complaint to get media attention. 

Others, however, have not been so lucky. Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin, for instance, was dragged through a several year process in a human rights commission, at the end of which he was found “guilty.” His crime? Writing a letter to the editor of a local newspaper expressing his concern about the gay agenda in schools. Boissoin was hit with a fine and ordered never again to publicly speak about his views on homosexuality. 

Archbishop Prendergast also expressed his concern for those who, thanks to the legalization of gay “marriage,” “are deceived into destructive lifestyles, approved of and funded by Canadian governments.”

“The Bible is being called hate literature,” he said. “Clearly, the Church is in the crosshairs. There will be growing pressure for the Church to comply or to be shut down.”

Enumerating the “consequences of same-sex marriages and related sexual license are already manifesting themselves,” the Archbishop noted: 

- restrictions on freedoms;
- forced sex education;
- sexually confused children;
- sexual experimentation among children;
- muzzling and debilitating the Church;
- more births out of wedlock;
- more in vitro fertilizations;
- more abortions;
- more poverty;
- more misery;
- more disease;
- more addictions; and
- higher health care costs.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

“By reassigning financial benefits to same-sex marriage, what was once an incentive to fruitful, traditional families has become an incentive to sterile, destructive social arrangements,” he said.

Archbishop Prendergast ended his address on a positive note. “Every challenge to the Church’s teaching is an opportunity to clarify it,” he said. “Media attention is putting the Church on the front page, and we must see that as a good thing.”

“Just the same,” he warned, “the playbook of our opponents is unrelenting attempts to change or destroy the Church.”

The state of Minnesota is set to vote on a referendum to protect traditional marriage on November 6.

News Print Article | Email Friend | Reprint Permissions Fox News psychiatrist says he fears threats of violence when questioning homosexual agenda - by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

July 5, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist who functions as a Fox News expert on the channel’s “Medical A-Team” says that he hesitates to write anything that might be considered objectionable to homosexual activists, due to the threats of violence he is likely to receive as a result.

In a recent Fox News interview with Ablow, the psychiatrist spoke about the recent New Family Structures Study (NFSS), which showed that children who were aware of same-sex sexual activity on the part of at least one of their parents were much more likely to have been sexually abused themselves and to suffer from depression, impaired relationships with others, and many other problems.

Observing that the study is the largest ever done on this subject, Ablow said that the disturbing results indicate “we’ve got to look more at it,” adding: “And it’s such a controversial thing, I’ve got to tell you, that I hesitate to write the blog [on the topic], because every time I do you know I get threats.”

“Well, we’ll get letters,” the Fox host answered.

“No, I get threats, I get threats!” responded Ablow. “People are going to come to my office, they’re going to burn down my house, it’s incredible.”

“In this politically-correct insane environment, citing data doesn’t seem to be compelling enough, because there’s a lot of hatred,” he added.

Click here to read Ablow’s blog entry and to see the video interview broadcast on Fox.

In his blog entry on the subject, Ablow elaborated, stating that he “he hesitated to write about this topic in an opinion piece.”

“I didn’t hesitate because I think the topic frivolous.” he continued. “I didn’t hesitate because I think of Social Science Research as a meaningless journal (because it is anything but that).  I didn’t hesitate because funding for the NESS comes partly from conservative groups (because data are data, unless they can be refuted on objective grounds, and this study is painstaking, in many regards).  I hesitated because I worried about getting more of the threats and hate mail (by post and e-mail) I receive whenever I even mention the seemingly unspeakable issue of how social forces related to sexual orientation and gender identity might impact well being in children.”

However, wrote Ablow, he would not be intimidated into silence. “When I see a path of enquiry that might yield some bit of truth, I want to try to be the person who takes it, no matter how treacherous.  And, so, it is with this commentary, now in your good hands, to take or leave, to debate, to discuss-as Tennyson wrote, ‘to strive, to seek, to find…’”

Ablow’s account of violent threats and harassment by proponents of the homosexual political agenda is echoed by many in the United States who take a pro-family position.

In May of this year, Bristol Palin, daughter of former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, received over three thousand responses to a blog post opposing homosexual “marriage,” many of which were laced with curse words and insults, and some of which advocated her death.

In February, a 14-year-old home-schooled girl who gave testimony in her state legislature against homosexual “marriage” received death threats and violent insults in the form of comments under the You Tube video that recorded the event. 

Related LifeSiteNews coverage:

* Same-sex ‘marriage’ advocates threaten Bristol Palin and her family with death
* 14-year-old homeschooled girl receives death threats for defending marriage
* Death threats against UK columnist for opposing homosexualist agenda
* Mormons, Knights of Columbus Face Chilling Threats and More Vandalism for Prop. 8 Support
* Gold standard’ study’s striking findings: children of heterosexual parents happier, healthier