Well, we're in the news again, and not in a good way. (Are we ever?) Arizona's legislature has passed SB 1062 and sent it on to Governor Brewer to sign. The moment it was approved by the legislature, protestors were out. Congressmen are urging the governor to veto it. Huffington Post is calling it an "anti-gay" bill. And the world rallies again to do battle with little ol' Arizona.
What is SP 1062? Well, it's a three-page bill that has the first page as a cover page and a second page full of definitions, so the last page is the content. The stated purpose is "free exercise of religion" and the aim is so that "State action shall not substantially burden a person's exercies of religion". Let's see ... blah, blah, blah ... nope, that's about it. The bill is an amendment to existing sections (41-1493 AND 41-1493.01) and simply clarifies that Arizonans have the right to the free exercise of religion without undue State influence.
Okay ... good, I think we're clear now. So, here's what we know. We know that at least someone in Arizona believes that the State should shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Oh, wait! That's kind of Constitutional, isn't it? Yeah, but apparently we also know that not everyone agrees with this principle. In fact, a large number apparently do not. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told the Post, "The far right of the conservative movement has been using our state as a petri dish for their anti-immigrant, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-women, anti-education, anti-gun safety agenda for years now, and it needs to stop." You might like to think that it's the "far left" that are protesting, but now it's also Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) who are urging Brewer to veto it. So it's not just the liberals. And AZCentral assures us that Arizona business groups overwhelmingly oppose the bill. And the media is opposed, obviously. So, let's see if I have this straight. The media, the public, and a large number of other political voices are now opposed to making no law respecting the free exercise of religion, but would favor such legislation that prevents religious practices, at least in the cases that they would oppose. And it would seem that the free exercise of religion is "anti-gay" and anti-business. (I mean, in what society would anyone want to do business with people who are allowed the free exercise of religion??!!) (Is it fair to say that Representative Raul Grijalva believes that religious freedom is "anti-immigrant, anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-women, anti-education, anti-gun safety"?)
Now, I know that we are assured over and over that subverting marriage to include same-sex couples and giving additional "civil rights" to people based solely on the gender with whom they want to have sex won't hurt us, but I'm having trouble seeing my way clear on this. When giving "civil rights" and "marriage", the latter by means of radical definition, to people means that the Constitution will no longer be upheld and religious freedom will no longer be honored, I'm wondering how anyone can maintain that position. It seems that they are pretty quick to demand "tolerance"; why do they draw the line so short on the tolerance they will give? And in what world does "equal protection" mean "we're removing your equal protection and Constitutional rights"? And why is it that relabeling "religious freedom" to mean "anti-gay" makes such an action either correct or moral ... unless that is an explicit admission that "gay" is directly opposed to religious freedom?
________
P.S. I have long held that relabeling the connection of two people of the same gender as "marriage" is not only not marriage, but is also detrimental to Christianity, to marriage, and to society. I think the above information agrees. I have also maintained that the tool for this damage is not simply the relabeling of that relationship to call it "marriage". The tools include the evolution of divorce, the evolution of sexual mores, and the assault of feminism. I am not surprised, then, to read Carina Kolodny's admission that her goal in pursuing "marriage equality" (How is "the destruction of marriage" defined as "marriage equality"?) is aimed at and reveling in the destruction of traditional marriage, and largely on egalitarian (the nonsensical belief that there are no differences between genders) grounds.
6 comments:
I read the bill several times in order to determine if there was anything that permits any business from denying general service to homosexuals simply because they are homosexuals, as in "we don't serve homosexuals here". There isn't. It seems clear that the homosexual lobby has only to proclaim a foul has been committed and weak-kneed politicians will cave for fear of losing votes. It amazes me that the homosexual lobby is even given the time of day given the incredibly small size of its base. What was predicted by many on the right (me, at least) and confirmed by the outright declaration of the activists is now a reality. The fictitious rights of the homosexual community trumps the Constitutionally protected rights of the majority.
I sent an email to Brewer through the governor's website encouraging her to either sign the bill into law, or announce that she must have the language of the bill altered to deflect these idiotic fears, but not veto it and leave it at that. I hope she's strong enough to see what's going on, but I'm already seeing indications in the media that she will veto it.
"It amazes me that the homosexual lobby is even given the time of day given the incredibly small size of its base."
That would seem a reasonable thing, except, as it turns out, the feminists and the Hispanic "open immigration" folk and whatever other groups that feel slighted somehow come out to join with the homosexuals in their "plight".
What I find fascinating is this concept that appears to hold that "the first one to make the most outlandish accusation wins" or something like it. Dubbed "hate" and "anti-gay" and all sorts of things it is not, the general public is now convinced that the 1st Amendment, if allowed to proceed, is all those things simply because they claimed it is.
If I read the link right, all that is is an editing of the original law to clarify the already existing law. I'm not exactly sure what's there to get uppity about. Its not changing the established law, or making a new one, simply clarifying.
You read it right, David. That's all it is. But of such an offense it is to allow a Christian photographer her freedom of religious expression that it is labeled "hate" and ... as of last night, vetoed by our governor. So genuine hate (Rom 8:7) wins out in the name of supposed hate that isn't real at all.
They keep demanding "tolerance" for their lifestyle choices, and yet adamantly refuse tolerance for those who don't want to AFFIRM their lifestyle.
It seems that they are pretty quick to demand "tolerance"; why do they draw the line so short on the tolerance they will give?
Post a Comment