America Celebrates Independence Day by Persecuting Christians

  • Rite: a prescribed form or manner governing the words or actions for a ceremony. A ceremonial act or action.
  • Right: Something to which one has a just claim.

On July 2nd the Oregon Bureau of Labor an Industry, AKA Brad “Armenian Genocide” Avakian, handed down a final judgment in the Sweet Cakes By Melissa case. Bakery owners, Melissa and Aaron Klein, must pay two lesbians $135,000 by Friday, July 10th for refusing to participate in their marriage rites in 2013. Lesbians Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer demanded a service from the bakery that the bakery did not provide, a same-sex wedding cake. The two women were perfectly welcome to purchase any amount of bread, pastries and pies they wanted. They were welcome to purchase a birthday cake or graduation cake. They were welcome to purchase any baked product that Sweet Cakes sold. However, much like a Halaal butcher who will not process or sell pork, the Kleins are Christians who do not make same-sex wedding cakes because the rite of same-sex marriage is against their religion.

Within Christianity there are six fundamental sacramental rites: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Forgiveness, Marriage, and Priesthood. These are rites we do not take lightly, much to the distain of others. Outside of America’s religious – Christians, Mormons, Jews, Muslims and the like – the institution of marriage has become hollow and nearly meaningless. People float in and out of relationships on a whim, and over 40% of all American babies are born out-of-wedlock. The respect for marriage as an institution is waning in America. The respect for marriage as a religious rite is dead. It is readily apparent that, while the Bowman-Cryer’s want the right to marry, they have utter contempt for the religious rites of marriage.

Portland, Oregon is home to scores of bakeries, just like it is home to scores of butchers. There are only a handful of Halaal butchers, and Sweet Cakes by Melissa was one of the few, perhaps the only, Christian bakery, now destroyed by the Oregon State Government in direct violation of the Oregon Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion. When decent folk want pork, they pass by the Halaal butcher’s shop. They do not walk in and demand services that violate butcher’s religious laws. Only mean, disrespectful, hateful people do things like that.

Melissa and Aaron Klein did not actively interfere with the Bowerman-Cryer’s ability to go through a marriage ceremony. They just asked not to be involved. They wanted to be left out of ceremonial rites the two lesbians were about undertake. It is not about the cake or hate or discrimination. It is about the religious nature of marriage. The lesbians were not engaging in a government sanctioned civil union. They had no government issued license. In fact, at the time same-sex marriage was illegal in Oregon. The rite of marriage that the lesbians were about the engage in was purely a spiritual ceremony. Unfortunately, in order for a Christian to participate in a same-sex wedding, they must violate their own religious tenets. It is that simple.

Religion is weird, strange, peculiar, and sometimes obnoxious to those looking in from the outside. I live my life by a set code. There are things I will not do simply because of my religion. Every religion is like that. Some are stricter than others, and sometimes one sect’s rules are opposite to another sect’s, and many rules really chafe secular society. Rather than respecting their neighbor’s faith, secular people sometimes prefer to hate.

The rites of same-sex marriage are front and center in today’s America. The US Supreme Court has just handed down the decision that same-sex couples have the right to have their marriages recognized by society and the government. It was the right decision, and too long in coming. The trouble is that, along side this righteous decision, our leaders have decided that all people of faith must now participate in the rites of same-sex weddings, even when it is expressly forbidden by their religion. That is evil. I am Catholic, and I would never dream of forcing a Halaal butcher to cater my wedding reception, let alone tell him to provide ham sandwiches, and then threaten his livelihood if he refused. I would never ask a Jewish baker to make me a wedding cake adorned with a crucifix. I would never try to bully a Mormon caterer into serving coffee, tea, wine and beer. It would be extremely disrespectful. Evil.

During the colonization period of North America, many of the early immigrants were a variety of Christian sects fleeing religious persecution in post-Reformation Europe. Christian denominations were not one big, happy family back in the day. The king of England persecuted Catholics. The king of France persecuted Hugonauts. Ordinary people had their property forfeited, and were imprisoned or killed by their own government if they refused to renounce their beliefs in favor of the King’s church. It was an ugly, embarrassing era for Christianity. The New World was the one safe place for good, religious people like the Amish Mennonites and Quakers to live free from persecution and live in peace with one another.

Religious freedom is part of the very core set of shared beliefs that are the heart and soul of the United States of America. Without it, this country and everything that makes it great no longer exists. Brad Avakian’s forefathers, the victims of decades of genocide, fled religious persecution in Armenia and Turkey to settle in America. Today, America’s Armenian community is second in size only to Russia’s. Ellen Rosenblum’s ancestors, victims of the Holocaust, fled thousands of years of persecution in Europe and Persia. Today, America is home to nearly half of all the Jews on planet Earth. As a matter of fact, because America so values religious freedom, it is the most religiously diverse nation that has ever existed. The Amish only exist in America, Canada and Ireland. There is nowhere else to go. There will never be another New World. America is the world’s only bastion for religious freedom, and our elected leaders, whose ancestors came to our shores seeking those freedoms, are out to incrementally breach those walls and end it all.

Today, the “King’s Church” in America is atheism. Our government has unilaterally decided to reinterpret our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion as freedom from religion. Aaron and Melissa Klein’s property is now forfeit because they refused to bow before it. Oregon lawmakers are telling us our religious rights must remain in the confines of our churches, synagogue, mosques, temples and kingdom halls. Once we step outside our sanctuary, we must bottle up our faith in our mind and accommodate a secular world that has contempt for our beliefs. Our government is making it illegal to make faith-based decisions and take faith-based actions, knowing that faith without acts is no faith at all. It is not just bakeries, florists, and wedding chapels that are under attack. For years left-wing American secularists have been pushing hard to force Christian physicians and medical facilities to provide abortion services. Religion is a threat to Big Brother, because our Constitution specifically states that God’s authority is greater than his, and he is under God. Big Brother hates that, and is doing everything he can to remove God from the equation.

There is only one peaceful solution. America’s religious have to stop voting for left-wing progressive politicians. People like Ellen Rosenblum, Brad Avakian, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid do not have our best interests at heart. Oregonians keep electing corrupt governors, and look what it has got us. John Kitzhaber won reelection last fall because Oregon’s religious citizenry turned a blind eye and gave him a pass. We have to stop giving bad people a pass and vote for men and women who will return this country to the constitutional democratic republic it once was… or we will continue to forfeit our liberties just like Aaron and Melissa Klein.

The Case Against Same-sex Marriage Part 6 – The Worst Argument

In order to make a morally just decision in the matter of the government licensing same-sex marriage, I feel obligated to examine the arguments against allowing such an institution before coming to a conclusion.

Part 6 – The Worst Argument Against Same-sex Marriage:

Homosexuality is deviant behavior.

Bell-shaped curves fill our world. A few folk are mentally retarded, a few are geniuses and most of us are ordinary, scattered across a bell-shaped curve for intelligence. A certain percentage of the world has Down’s Syndrome, cerebral-palsy, red hair and are left-handed. It is what it is. My genetic code made me short, a little bit smart, and hard-wired straight. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what women find attractive about men. We are smelly, loud, obnoxious, aggressive, preditory and hairy. Unattractive! It is all in the wiring. One of my close friends is gay. He is neither flamboyant nor promiscuous, and has been with his partner for 30 years. His orientation was never about choice. It is simply in the wiring. Just as I could have never chosen an attraction to men, he has simply never found women of any interest whatsoever. The homosexual trait has existed for all of recorded history. Regardless of ethnicity, religion, or country, it is a genetic trait that is evenly distributed throughout all societies on Earth. So far all of our efforts to change homosexuals to heterosexuals have been clinical failures.

The crux is homosexuality (best guess estimates range from 2% to 20% of the population) is no more deviant than being a ginger (1-2% of the population and very much persecuted in the U.K.) or left-handed (about 10% of the population – and think on this: the word “sinister” finds its Latin roots in left-handedness). Heterosexuals are simply hardwired to respond negatively to homosexual sex acts. The point of being human is the ability to rise above our visceral instincts. If you want an example of deviant behavior you should consider swingers, bondage, or men who walk around in women’s underwear. Homosexuals are pretty common, ordinary even, in the grand scheme of things. Ordinary is pretty much the opposite of deviant.

Conclusion to the 6 part series

Objective examination of this series of arguments is the method I used to come to my conclusion quite some time ago. My personal answer was actually a relief at the end, because I was never comfortable with the position ingrained in me by society at large, including the Pride movement… much to that movement’s shame. Fear and hatred cripple our human experience even more than treating one another as mere objects of use. Love and commitment, valuing the sum of our parts rather than just the parts themselves, only heal that same human experience. Adding same-sex marriages to our civil law will not detract from society at large, as long as that same society also respects every American’s right to freedom of religion as designed and guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. Agree to disagree, and then live and let live.

The Case Against Same-sex Marriage Part 5 – The Best Argument

In order to make a morally just decision in the matter of the government licensing same-sex marriage, I feel obligated to examine the arguments against allowing such an institution before coming to a conclusion.

Part 5 – The Best Argument Against Same-sex Marriage:

If secular society approves same-sex marriage, homosexuals will seek to force America’s religious to approve of same-sex marriages and participate in same-sex weddings.

Since Roe v. Wade, America’s pro-abortion leaders, disgusting folks like NARAL, have attempted to force abortion and contraceptives on America’s religious citizens and healthcare organizations. Since the introduction of Plan B, the emergency contraceptive and abortifacient, into the market I have personally been verbally attacked by such people in my own work place simply because I refused to talk to them about it. They knew I could do little to defend myself without getting fired, and heaped on the abuse while bystanders gawked at their boorish behavior.

The same-sex marriage controversy is no different. Here in Oregon, in direct violation of the Oregon Constitution, Attorney General Ellen F. Roseblum destroyed one of Portland’s only Christian bakeries because they refused to bake a same-sex wedding cake for a lesbian couple. It is not a theoretical fear. These fights between secular rights and religious conscience are being fought in America’s legal system every day.

Here is a black and white example. I enjoy coffee, tea, wine, and pulled pork, and am Catholic. Both the Mormons and the Muslims believe this combination puts my very soul at risk of damnation, no different than if I were a flamboyant gay man. Thanks to the Constitution, they have no legal right to force me to convert to their religious way of thinking, and I have no legal right to force them to serve coffee and pulled-pork sandwiches at their food cart in downtown Portland. That is the price and promise of living in America… at least it used to be.

If the LGBT community is not willing to respect religious values of people they disagree with, they will never garner those people’s support. Ever. I realize that Fred Phelps was a rotten Christian, but turnabout is not fair play, unless the play was fair to begin with. If you do not like someone’s religious view, all you can do is present your best case and leave them to their conscience. That is the beauty of America, and why I would never move to the UAE. Homosexuals do not have the right to force their lifestyle on anyone any more than Christians (or Muslims) have the right to force homosexuals to be straight. In the long run, while it might feel good to screw the Christian in the moment, it is a losing strategy. Giving people a legitimate reason to hate you always is. Just ask Fred Phelps.

The Case Against Same-sex Marriage Part 4 – Moral Arguments

In order to make a morally just decision in the matter of the government licensing same-sex marriage, I feel obligated to examine the arguments against allowing such an institution before coming to a conclusion.

Part 4 – Moral Arguments:

Same-sex marriage violates Natural Law.

Natural Law is the sense of right and wrong and of mutual obligation that is natural to mankind, as distinguished from the revealed law of God and the codified laws of men. Natural Laws are not to be confused with cultural norms, like women must wear burkas and cannot wear pants. Natural Law is the use of reason to create rules of behavior so fundamental that they are universal.

The idea here is that because same-sex marriage has been universally shunned by pretty much every society all through history, it must violate Natural Law. While this is a legitimate observation, we still need the logic proof. The logical series of IF, THEN statements that prove the theory. I can easily do this for other socially explosive issues like abortion and inter-racial marriage, but can it be done in the case of same-sex marriage?

For instance, life begins at conception, therefore abortion is murder. That is a short, easy logic proof that states abortion violates Natural Law (a side note – The logic proof that “murder is wrong” is significantly longer and harder to work out than the one that defines abortion as murder). The proof is airtight, and it has never been debunked by any abortion advocate. Unfortunately, I have never seen a comparable series of logical, IF, THEN statements proving homosexuality is a violation of Natural Law. Saying it is disgusting hardly proves the point.

Look at it this way, one of the very fundamental natural laws is that every person has the right to self-determination. Therefore any relationship any person is forced to enter without willing consent is a violation of Natural Law. That is why slavery is a violation of Natural Law. Animals cannot consent to marriage, that is why bestiality is a violation of Natural Law. Children do not have the maturity to consent to carnal relations, that is why pedophilia is a violation of Natural Law. Any arranged marriage between a man and a woman, one where one or both parties do not willingly consent to the marriage, is a violation of Natural Law. I am guessing that a significant number of heterosexual marriages throughout history, while perfectly legal according to civil law and accepted by religious law, fall into this category. Do consensual, same-sex marriages fall into this category?

God says homosexuality is hateful to the human body.

The Christian Bible, examined from a scientific point of view, reads like an ancient CDC manual. It prescribes all kinds of dos and don’ts that promote a healthy, stable society. Many of the rules of antiquity, like the ban on pork, are no longer relevant, while many of the rules, like the ban on adultery and child abuse, are as relevant as ever. If you take the time to read Leviticus, you will find it is not nearly as ridiculous as it sounds when you look at the rules through the lens of science and in the context of the society of the time. Our ancestors were entirely ignorant of germ theory and could not have known that having sex with animals could lead to trans-species disease transmission that could destroy the entire society, so God simply banned it without getting too far into the weeds.

Back in the day homosexuality obviously existed, just as it does today. Why was it banned back then, and is that ban still necessary today? Most modern Christians eat pork and use birth control without a second thought. Most modern Christians accept divorce and remarriage. About 27% of American Christians have been divorced at least one time. Most modern Christians still hold that abortion is murder and that life begins at conception. This means that while some rules remain fixed, some rules have flexed in our modern society. Nobody gets stoned to death in Christendom anymore, even though it is a biblically prescribed punishment, and we certainly do not espouse the burning of members of Wicca… Fred Phelps not withstanding.

This begs the question, will a monogamous, same-sex marriage be harmful to the body? While promiscuity spreads sexually transmitted diseases among both homosexual and heterosexual populations, there does not seem to be any real health consequences of any sort to monogamous same-sex couples. If homosexuality is truly hateful to the body, science should be able to quantify it, yet it cannot.

Same-sex marriage validates the homosexual lifestyle.

What most consider the “homosexual lifestyle,” debauchery and all, is already legal. Nobody goes to jail for sodomy anymore, and any sheriff who thinks otherwise will get publicly tarred and feathered. Debauchery and flamboyancy, whether homosexual or heterosexual, while unsavory to many, are no longer illegal. Acknowledging same-sex marriage actually creates a new homosexual lifestyle instead validating the old. This new life-style, by its very nature, trends to the conservative, not the progressive. From a conservative point of view, allowing same-sex marriage can only introduce conservative values, such as fidelity, in a previously progressive stronghold. It will also introduce the trials and tribulations of divorce into that community.

Homosexuality is a moral wrong and we should not validate it by making it a civil right.

Moral wrongs are generally determined by Natural Law and Religious Law. Civil law determines civil wrongs. There are many things I believe are moral wrongs that are perfectly legal, or quasi-legal under civil law. There are many things illegal under civil law, that I believe are morally neutral or morally just. It is the double edge sword of living in America. I cannot force my moral code on others, though I believe it would improve society, and no one can force their moral code on me. In theory, anyway. The secular legalization of same-sex marriage in civil law does not make it morally right anymore than legalizing adultery, promiscuity, marijuana use or abortion make these things morally right; four things I consider devastating to our society. I must be clear here, I am not saying same-sex marriage is of the same moral character as these four. I cannot find the logic proof that allows me to define same-sex marriage as a moral wrong in the first place. My point is that making something legal or illegal in civil law in no way validates its moral standing. Life begins at conception, no matter what SCOTUS says.

If we change the legal definition of marriage, it will lead to incestuous, bestial and polygamous marriages.

This is a false slippery slope argument. The single, fundamental assumption about any marriage is that it will have a carnal, sexual side. The fundamental reason we ban incestuous relations is the increased risk for genetic deformities. That is why these relationships are taboo. Fake marriages, say ones designed to provide a foreigner citizenship, or to manipulate the tax system, are already on tenuous legal grounds. This makes the argument that same-sex marriage will allow a father to marry his daughter and two brothers to marry each other simply to avoid inheritance taxes really flimsy. Genetic deformities are not the foundation for the argument against same-sex marriage.

The fundamental reason we ban bestiality is disease transmission. Animals also lack the ability to consent, and are legally possessions, not individuals with human rights. Intra-species disease transmission is not the reason why same-sex marriage is banned.

The study of polygamous households have demonstrated substantial weaknesses compared to monogamous households. The wives and children are all rivals for the man’s attention. If one man takes all the available wives, that tends to make the remaining bachelors a bit testy. Jealousy is a fundamental of human nature. We are not really built for plural relationships. Monogamy is much more in line with Natural Law then polygamy. Add to this that males and females are born in approximately a 1:1 ratio, and polygamy simply does not add up. Our ban on polygamy is for different reasons than our ban on same-sex marriage.

Using this slippery slope argument basically is accusing same-sex couples of introducing intra-species diseases into the population, creating complex, soap opera like family discord, and a desire to commit tax fraud. Logic proofs must work backwards as well and forwards, and this argument fails miserably.

The Case Against Same-sex Marriage Part 3 – Socio-economic Arguments

In order to make a morally just decision in the matter of the government licensing same-sex marriage, I feel obligated to examine the arguments against allowing such an institution before coming to a conclusion.

Part 3 – Socio-economic Arguments:

Same-sex couples can already have a marriage ceremony and then meet with a family planning attorney to address most legal issues, so they do not need government approval.

That is true. A good family planning attorney can overcome many of the objections raised by same-sex couples. Also, a marriage is only as good as the people entering the contract. Government recognition does nothing to improve a marriage’s chance of success. Heterosexual couples also have the option of bypassing the government and simply going the spiritual route. This actually has some significant benefits, especially when it comes to income taxes, qualifying for government welfare entitlements, and divorce. However, a government-licensed marriage does come with a lot of financial and social perks, and most heterosexual couples eventually want those in pocket. So do many same-sex couples.

Homosexuals really only want the financial rights that go with a government sanctioned marriage.

Well, yes, they do. But it is the government who has injected financial incentives and penalties into the marriage contract. To say that same-sex couples had utterly no desire to enjoy the spiritual benefits and responsibilities that come from marriage before the U.S. Government started adding monetized benefits to marriage is really quite dehumanizing, as though they are not capable of love. It is the government that created this dynamic. If we were able to remove that dynamic, remove all monetized benefits and penalties that are legislated into heterosexual marriage, I suspect the drive for secular recognition of same-sex marriage would hardly lessen. Frankly, there will never be a test to this theory. Uncle Sam will never give up control of the marriage contract. Without a valid test, it cannot be a proof. The only proof available is observational science. We can see that some homosexuals want to marry badly enough that they will marry outside of civil law and forgo the perks of a government license.

Marriage’s primary purpose is to promote the common good. Same-sex marriage does not promote the common good.

Yes, traditional, healthy marriages stabilize all societies. Families provide structure and create order and cooperation amid anarchy and chaos. However, there is no evidence that same-sex marriage will destabilize the common good. How can there be? It has never been tried. I can make solid arguments using studies, statistics, and charts and graphs that polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, promiscuity, adultery, having children out-of-wedlock, no-fault divorce and couples who shack-up for convenience have a negative impact on society, but cannot point to any social degradation brought about by a same-sex couple who enter into a marriage contract. Most people who marry take the contract pretty seriously, at least at first. My hunch is that by allowing same-sex couples to marry, there will be a statistical decrease in promiscuity among that group, just as there is with traditional marriage. That just might promote the common good. It is worth considering.

Same-sex marriage denies children access to a mother and a father.

Currently it is legal for homosexuals to adopt and have biological children through various circumstances. I do agree that children benefit most from having a mother and father who are married and are not bat-shit crazy, abusive, drug addled, welfare recipients. In a perfect world, all children would be raised in idyllic settings. Children really do need a good mother and a good father, but that is not the society we live in. This is just a guess, but I suspect that there are more children being raised today by crack-whores than by same-sex couples. I apologize for getting profane. Before we use children as a shield against same-sex marriage, we need to actually assess if and how it will change anything, since homosexuals already raise children, and often provide a superior setting over any number of other childhood experiences.

Same-sex marriage is the leading edge of a sexual/moral revolution.

While the sexual revolution has been instrumental in allowing homosexuals to come out of the shadows and publicly express the truth of who they are, open acceptance of homosexuality is actually the trailing edge of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution’s leading edge has been the devaluation of marriage as the institution of carnal knowledge and procreation, the open access to effective birth-control, the progressing normalcy of children being born out-of-wedlock, and the open access to abortion that occurred over the past fifty years. Having homosexuals reject promiscuity and debauchery in favor of entering into a committed marriage contract is actually counter to the mores of the sexual revolution. At least the way I understand it. The whole sexual revolution has been about reducing all persons to merely sexual objects, things that you can buy, sell, use and discard at whim. The human marriage experience, even when it fails, is a spiritual commitment that transcends sexual gratification.

The Case Against Same-sex Marriage Part 2 – Historical Arguments

In order to make a morally just decision in the matter of the government licensing same-sex marriage, I feel obligated to examine the arguments against allowing such an institution before coming to a conclusion.

Part 2 – Historical Arguments:

In human history no society has ever allowed homosexual marriage, therefore it should remain one man, one woman.

Observationally, this is essentially true. Humanity has always had pockets of society that approve of plural marriage and incestuous marriage, but not same-sex marriage. Some societies throughout history have tolerated and even somewhat promoted homosexuality, but never sanctioned traditional marriage for same-sex partners. However, observation, while an extremely important part of the scientific method, is not reason. Observation does not answer why, and it lumps those societies that have been relatively tolerant of homosexuality together with those that are very intolerant, without attempting to understand the differences. This very argument was used in the 18th and 19th centuries as a justification to continue the institution of slavery. We need more than observational science if we are to deny rights to a perennial segment of society. We need a logical proof.

Marriage is an institution designed specifically for the generation of children.

Historically this is essentially true, although it is not like there actually was a design team out there that drew up some sort of “marriage plan” and then passed that design around the globe 15,000 years ago so everyone could be on the same page. Still, marriage is the traditional context in which society generates families, especially in the major religions.

However, socially, in a world of over seven billion people, the need to go forth and multiply has come to an end. We have successfully fulfilled that mandate. Humanity has gone forth and multiplied, and now a lot of married folk are choosing to limit the number of children they have, or simply not have them at all. These marriages remain just as legally valid as the couple that has eight or ten children. Procreation is no longer the sole purpose of marriage. In that context, even though the fundamental purpose of sex is reproduction, what is the social difference between a childless, monogamous, committed same-sex couple and a childless, monogamous, committed heterosexual couple? There is no legal requirement that a marriage produce children.

Some religions may teach this as a moral wrong, including my own Catholic faith, but have yet to provide the logic proof to back up the argument. Even Pope John Paul II’s fundamental argument has a logic gap that ruins his proof, and he was as smart as they get. Also consider the number of children born out-of-wedlock. Not good. Not illegal.

When put to a public vote, the public always votes against allowing same-sex marriage.

This is a fairly strong argument under most circumstances. In general, societies that are truly democratic are more peaceful and prosperous than those where a central power dictates to the majority and minority without regard to the will of the people. However there are many issues, such as abortion, capital punishment, national health care and gender reassignment, where the government either ignores or overrides the will of the people. I am not saying it is right or wrong to ignore the rule of the majority, only that using the “will of the people” argument is not valid because the government already ignores the “will of the people” much of the time, and sometimes the will of the majority is to persecute the minority. Islam is its own worst enemy in this regard. Since the “will of the people” argument has so many exceptions, it cannot be used as a valid rationale.

The Case Against Same-sex Marriage Part 1 – Weak Arguments

In order to make a morally just decision in the matter of the government licensing same-sex marriage, I feel obligated to examine the arguments against allowing such an institution before coming to a conclusion.


Despite growing up in a Catholic household, homosexuality was never on the radar at home or at church. Everything I learned about homosexuals as a kid came from the playground, the West Hills Market’s rack of dirty magazines, the Gay Pride movement, and my own hard-wired attraction to girls. In retrospect, it was homosexual men’s publicly flamboyant behavior running counter to my own predispositions that fomented my initial recoil from gay men. As a young boy and adolescent, before I actually knew about sexual mechanics, I felt there was something viscerally wrong with men publicly behaving like angry queens and manic fairies. It was the Pride movement’s unadulterated hedonism that ran counter to the system of ethics in which I was raised. In this regard, by coming out in such garish style in the 70’s and 80’s, they poked themselves in the eye with their own stick. They pinned the moniker, “queer,” to themselves with their unrepentant flamboyancy.

Sexual promiscuity always has been and always will be bad behavior, no matter the social mores of any given society. The logic proof is air-tight, and the damage promiscuity does to all societies is out in the open for everyone to see. HIV is a global epidemic. Everywhere American servicemen go they leave behind unwanted children, a huge problem today in the Philippines. Adultery destroys marriages. BUT homosexuality is not promiscuity. Despite what many detractors claim, in the vast majority of cases sexual orientation gives all appearances of being in the wiring and not a choice. Promiscuity is purely a choice. This fundamental difference is why I took the time to challenge my own thinking on the matter. Does my visceral response hold up under the scrutiny of logical argument?

This is a very lightly read blog and readers rarely make comment. In this matter, it is my hope that anyone of strong opinion on either side will take the time to counter anything or everything I say. Though in a civil tone, I hope.


Part 1 – Weak Arguments:

Same-sex marriage will fail at domesticating men.

Huh? I cook and clean, and gay men cook and clean. We both mow our lawns and wash our cars. We have day jobs in all walks of life. What on earth do work and chores have to do with same-sex marriage? Bachelors have to do dishes. Same-sex roommates have to clean up after themselves. So what? I bet there are plenty of gay guys who hunt and drive trucks, and plenty of lesbians who like home decorating, and plenty of straights who are exactly the opposite. In reality, compared to a few centuries ago, modern society has domesticated all American men, gay or straight. Even those Duck Dynasty guys. Indoor plumbing and grocery stores do that to a fella.

Same-sex marriage is not capable of natural procreation and generation of a family unit.

While this is true, procreation has never been a legal requirement for marriage in any society in the history of man. Plenty of straight couples either cannot or choose not to have children. Can anyone out there show me a single case where any marriage has been legally invalidated based solely on the lack of offspring?

Marriage thrives on the partners playing gender specific rules.

This does bring up a rather odd observation about same-sex couples. Very often there seems to be a dominant male persona and a weaker female persona, regardless of the gender of the couple. I do not know what to make of that, but even in the homosexual relationship it appears important. I do not see this is a logical argument to ban same-sex marriage, but it does appear that gender-like roles exist in those relationships. What I find even more unusual are those heterosexual marriages where the woman clearly wears the pants and the man clearly wears the apron.

Same-sex marriage would promote sexual infidelity.

Certainly. The more marriages there are, the more opportunities there are for adulterous infidelities among all sexual orientations. But this is like saying that gun violence is the only sort of violence that counts, and all other violence is tolerable as long as it is not gun violence. The institution of marriage decreases overall promiscuity, just like the right to bear arms decreases overall social violence. Once you sign the marriage contract, you are less likely to sample goods elsewhere.

The English word “marriage” is defined as a covenant between one man and one woman.

According to my ‘43 Webster’s Dictionary, a book not tainted by modern progressivism or political correctness, marriage is: The act of uniting a man and a woman for life. The legal union of a man and a woman. A close, intimate union of any kind. A marriage contract or betrothal.

There are several kinds of marriage – civil marriages, common-law marriages, Morganatic marriages, Scotch marriages.

And there it is. Webster’s defines the English word marriage as a close, intimate union of any kind, and same-sex couples are not specifically excluded. While American legal tradition limits marriage to one man and one woman, the literal definition does not.

A quick side note – According to my ‘43, the word GAY does not mean homosexual. It means jovial and merry. That means just about anyone of good humor qualifies as a member of LGBT.

The Death of Rule of Law – Part VI of VI: The Death of Religious Freedom and the Death of Trial by Jury

6th Amendment of the ConstitutionIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

7th Amendment of the ConstitutionIn suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Freedom From Religion

 The very core of Constitutional theory is that fundamental human rights are inalienable, granted us by God Almighty, regardless of the actions of man, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That, in my estimation, is why the very first line of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” This is as straightforward as it gets, and, like it or not, is the foundation for all arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. The government cannot establish a national religion, and cannot punish citizens for practicing their religion, and people have the right to live according to their beliefs… including same-sex marriage.

In my home state of Oregon, our Constitution protects religious freedom to an even greater degree than its Federal counterpart. The Oregon Constitution reads, All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience. No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of trust or profit.” Finally, the Oregon Constitution requires a majority vote to change, and The U.S. Constitution requires ratification in thirty-eight states to change. To date, neither the citizens of Oregon nor of the United States have used the clearly laid democratic process to alter the constitutional liberties and protections afforded to America’s religious. Yet, in Oregon, while we are on the verge of legalizing same-sex marriage, religious freedom is effectively dead, as though both cannot exist in one society. How could this happen?

Before we go any further, the reader has to understand a bit about Oregon. Oregon is about as far away from the Bible Belt as you can get without going to Europe. It is one of the most left-leaning, progressive, unchurched states in the Union. The Portland Metropolitan area is a safe-haven for all things non-conservative, and The Rose City’s mantra is “Keep Portland Weird!” We have very few conservative or religious leaders, and their agendas rarely get fair hearing. Portland city government is extremely lax when it comes to law enforcement, frequently giving those favored leftwing groups like anarchists, naked cyclists, the homeless, and illegal aliens a pass when they break laws. Portland is a safe haven for the free-spirited and the fringe, and you are just as likely to see a man in skirt and pantyhose by the food-carts eating lunch as you are a woman. There is no systematic discrimination of any group in Oregon. Quite the opposite. Oregon, dominated by Multnomah County, is a literal orgy of the eclectic, and that makes it a pretty fun night on the town even for conservative Christians like me.

Oregon is also a hotbed of leftwing, progressive political activity. We are home to one of the nation’s most successful Occupy movements, and our local and state politicians are always looking for ways to subvert the Rule of Law without an actual public vote. This is where two lesbians and a Christian bakery step into the picture.

Two rather militant Oregon lesbians singled out and entered a Christian bakery, not to purchase a loaf of bread or innocuous birthday cake, but rather to demand the Christians bake them a wedding cake with a same-sex topper. The Christians, citing their religion’s 2,000 year stand against homosexuality, declined to help the two lesbians celebrate their wedding, wholly believing they lived in a state and nation where religious freedom was constitutionally protected. The lesbians cited a 2007 Oregon antidiscrimination law and filed a complaint with the State, framing the issue as a “Whites Only Drinking Fountain” issue. Oregon’s Attorney General, Ellen F. Rosenblum, a woman who openly acknowledges she will not defend laws she does not like, spearheaded the case against the Christian bakery, while Oregon Labor Commissioner, Brad Avakian, illegally brought the hammer of government down on them, literally destroying their business. Were the Christians allowed a trial by jury as guaranteed by the Constitution? Nope. The Christians were summarily punished for their beliefs by two political bedfellows who share an extraordinary history of religious persecution and genocide.

“What’s that?” you say!

Well, Attorney General Rosenblum is a Jewess, and Labor Commission Avakian is Armenian. Between the two of them they share an intertwined ancestral history where around twelve million of their forefathers and religious brothers and sisters were slaughtered during the late 19th Century and the first half of the 20th Century in Europe and Persia simply based on their religious beliefs. That is right, folks, Brad Avakian, kin to 1.5 million Armenian Christians slaughtered during the Armenian Genocide, overturned constitutional law protecting religious freedom by simply ignoring it. No trial. No judge. No jury of peers. No vote of the people. Not even a conviction in the court of public opinion. Just Activist Brad and Activist Ellen. You can imagine the greeting they will get from their forefathers when they die. And here is why.

The Portland Metro area is home to a plethora of bakeries of all persuasions (think “water fountains”). I drive by no less than five bakeries in my short seven-mile daily commute. As a matter of fact, Portland has so many bakeries, 99% of which would be perfectly happy to celebrate a same-sex wedding (again, think “water fountains”), that the odds of a militant lesbian couple accidentally stumbling across a rare Christian bakery are similar to finding a needle in a haystack when you are not even looking. It is theoretically possible, but unlikely. This was no accident… and Brad Avakian and Ellen Rosenblum know it. I am guessing that Activist Ellen’s next act will be to sic Activist Brad on the Jewish deli that refuses to cater ham sandwiches for a Neo-Nazi rally, or perhaps the Muslim florist who refuses to make a giant floral crucifix for a Catholic funeral, or the Negro baker who refuses to bake a Confederate flag cake for a Klansman’s birthday or the Mormon restaurant that refuses to serve coffee to cops on duty. This is yet another test case to find out if activist government workers can infringe upon and overturn the Constitution they are sworn to uphold simply by pretending it is not there. So far, the answer is an emphatic yes.