With yesterday’s decision by the United States Supreme Court, here are three editorials I wrote about how government recognition of homosexual marriage threatens religious liberty:
- DOMA, free association and religious liberty — July 3, 2013
- Homosexual marriage threatens religious freedom — December 16, 2013
- Religious freedom vs. mandatory acceptance — March 3, 2014
Below is a press release from the American Family Association of Indiana. Reprinted with permission.
For Immediate Release 11/6/14 (4:25 pm EST)
The following is a statement from Micah Clark, Executive Director of the American Family Association of Indiana on the news today of the Supreme Court’s refusal to consider the future of natural marriage and voter referenda in America. The Supreme Court surprised most observers when they refused the consider an appeal of lower court rulings from Indiana and four other states.
“This is not the final resolution to this issue. The 5th, 6th, 8th, and 11th Circuits can still rule for natural marriage or state’s rights. The Supreme Court could, and would likely, take this matter up, if any of these circuits recognized marriage as a gendered institution deserving legal protection from the legislature or the ballot box.
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court did not rule on this issue, they simply took a pass for now. In the end, however, no matter what any court says, the needs of children to both a mother and a father will never change. Marriage is an institution that protects the interests children and society. It predates Indiana law and US law. It is not a tool for applauding the desires of activists attempting to use the courts to rewrite what marriage has always been.
Marriage is not merely the union of any two people, but the special union of a man and a woman that benefits children and society like no other relationship. No court can ever change that truth.
No judge in the world can override the Judge of the Universe. God designed marriage as the special union of both genders. He created men and women as complimentary human beings and scolded against anyone separating them in marriage. We enter uncharted territory as a nation if we allow less than 2% of the population to force a new definition of marriage upon every person, institution, business, and church.
In states impacted by the court’s notice today, legislators should consider protecting the freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of association of those millions of individuals who hold to the traditional view of marriage which has served children and societies well since the beginning of time.”