Here it comes! Religions not recognizing gay marriage will be hate groups

[Elias Graves]

Saw this one coming a mile away. In two years time, Christianity will be illegal.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/10/North-Carolina-Case-Pushing-Federal-Constitution-Right-to-Gay-Marriage-Endangering-Religious-Liberty


Gay marriage could be back in the Supreme Court in the next two years, particularly to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution includes a right to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. A decision supporting that premise would strike down traditional-marriage laws in all 37 states that have them and forever forbid the American people from voting again on the issue.In 2012, the people of North Carolina exercised their democratic right to amend the North Carolina Constitution. By a result of 61 percent to 39 percent, the voters reaffirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That simply reinforced the laws already on the books in North Carolina, a state that does not recognize homosexual or polygamous marriage.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is trying to change that through a lawsuit that would silence the voters of North Carolina and force new forms of marriage on that state through judicial fiat. The ACLU currently has a gay-marriage lawsuit underway in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina; it is now amending the civil complaint in that lawsuit to argue that the marriage provision of the North Carolina Constitution violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (which does not say a word about marriage one way or the other).
The ACLU is trying to create a constitutional right to gay marriage under which the people of the 50 states could no longer vote on the issue or decide it on a state-by-state basis. The ACLU also endorses a constitutional right to polygamy (marriage of three or more persons), which became prominent when then-ACLU President Nadine Strossen debated Justice Antonin Scalia in 2006. But the ACLU is not presenting that argument in this lawsuit, possibly planning to build on a gay-marriage constitutional win to file a follow-up lawsuit to create a right to polygamous marriage.
It is also worth noting that President Obama’s controversial appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—Chai Feldblum, who has said that whenever religious liberty and gay marriage conflict, gay marriage should always win over religious liberty—has also endorsed a right to marriage of more than two people.
A decision is likely by early next year in the district court, and so by the end of 2014 there could be a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. This could mean that by 2015 the Supreme Court could yet again be faced with an opportunity to declare that the Federal Constitution—which nowhere mentions marriage—somehow bars the American people from deciding marriage laws in their states, and instead declares that any two (or more?) consenting adults have the right to marry anyone they want.
Those in the new forms of marriage could demand all public, legal, and taxpayer rights for any marriage unit they choose to create. This could pose profound dangers to religious organizations (such as churches) and individuals (especially business owners) who refuse to recognize or participate in same-sex marriage.
Already, this issue is moving again through the court system, where its fate is uncertain.

[Elias Graves]

And since the Feds have already recognized it, I'm just waiting for the first catholic army chaplain to refuse to perform a wedding...

[Antischism]

Oh, it's Breitbart.

STOP THE GAYS! THEY'RE GOING TO DESTROY EVERYTHIIIIING. FIRST THEY'LL COME FOR YOUR HUSBANDS AND WIVES, THEN THEY'LL COME FOR CHRISTIANITY!

Let's forget the fact that a lot of homosexuals are Christians.

[Elias Graves]

Oh, it's Breitbart.

STOP THE GAYS! THEY'RE GOING TO DESTROY EVERYTHIIIIING. FIRST THEY'LL COME FOR YOUR HUSBANDS AND WIVES, THEN THEY'LL COME FOR CHRISTIANITY!

Let's forget the fact that a lot of homosexuals are Christians.

I honestly don't care what people do with each other but this whole issue is trumped up to turn turn Christians into terrorists.

[phill4paul]

There is an end. Strike all words "spouse" from federal legislature and insert the word "benefit designee." But everyone doesn't want an end. It is the goal of their lives to "be special." Whether gay or straight. It's in the best interest of either parties to simply strike all federal legislation regarding the matter.

Alt lyrics..apropos........

The government wants you to be special
The government wants you to be high
They throw you down a rope when you're in trouble, baby
Screamin', "Save me"

Then they charge you with the rescue blues
Oh, the rescue blues oh oh

The government wants to see you suffer
They know that you need the pain so much
They throw you up a rope when you're too high to cruise, baby
Lord, You lose lady

Then they charge you with the rescue blues
Oh, the rescue blues oh oh

The government wants to see you fall
That's why they always love when you get high
And everybody knows you need the pain so much, lady
Well, keep in touch, baby

Just don't charge me with your rescue blues
Oh, oh, rescue blues oh oh oh oh


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGBzYxwtyQs

[oyarde]

I have seen this coming for some time.I do not mind , easier to draw Militia from my Church once they are labeled so , LOL

[Christian Liberty]

Oh, it's Breitbart.

STOP THE GAYS! THEY'RE GOING TO DESTROY EVERYTHIIIIING. FIRST THEY'LL COME FOR YOUR HUSBANDS AND WIVES, THEN THEY'LL COME FOR CHRISTIANITY!

Let's forget the fact that a lot of homosexuals are Christians.

There are some gay people who really just want to be left alone. I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I respect their right to live how they want.

Then there are the militant homosexualists. Those are the kind of people who march in the gay pride parades, or worse, try to sue Christians who refuse to grant them certain services on conscientious grounds.

They can say what they want, but I don't like them or respect them, and if they try to use the law against Christians, self-defense is justified.


I honestly don't care what people do with each other but this whole issue is trumped up to turn turn Christians into terrorists.


Indeed.

I'm proudly baptist AND libertarian. These fascists can deal with that.

[phill4paul]

I have seen this coming for some time.I do not mind , easier to draw Militia from my Church once they are labeled so , LOL

I do not know what you mean by this oyarde.

[Christian Liberty]

@philforpaul-

I totally agree with you, both on making this a state issue and on ultimately making it a private issue.

But I hate the people who want to use what is designed to look like a pro-liberty stance in order to punish people like me that don't actually want to take any legal action against that lifestyle but nonetheless stand morally opposed to it.

[phill4paul]

There are some gay people who really just want to be left alone. I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I respect their right to live how they want.

The majority that want marriage want the same federal benefits as traditional couples do. Do you as a "straight" understand the auromatic benefits "granted" by the Crown for your particular sexual bent?


Then there are the militant homosexualists. Those are the kind of people who march in the gay pride parades, or worse, try to sue Christians who refuse to grant them certain services on conscientious grounds.

Extremists make the most noise in media. At some point individuals and collectives have to stand up.


They can say what they want, but I don't like them or respect them, and if they try to use the law against Christians, self-defense is justified.

And your "defense" of your belief, the defense of traditional marriage benefits leads you to the conclusion that "self-defense" is the course you should take. SMFH.

So you are FOR the Federal government when it is For you? Against it when it is not? You need to change your user name.

[JK/SEA]

I consider most organized religious groups as a hate group. When was the last time any religious group stopped a war?

[oyarde]

I do not know what you mean by this oyarde.

My religion will be named a hate group ,the Pastors will not perform marriages against the will they have . The people try to stay away from govt as is the nature , once that happens they will probably face how intrusive govt is.

[oyarde]

I honestly don't care what people do with each other but this whole issue is trumped up to turn turn Christians into terrorists.

It will be if Dems have a say, they have no religion but Marxism, they must make you participate in the one they love .

[oyarde]

I have no opinion on marriage at all , but I have always known if the Feds get involved it will lead to forced participation .Anti Liberty is the only thing they are good at.

[69360]

This has no basis, there are no laws that force a non-government entity or person to perform a marriage.

[oyarde]

This has no basis, there are no laws that force a non-government entity or person to perform a marriage.

Those will be coming

[oyarde]

This has no basis, there are no laws that force a non-government entity or person to perform a marriage.

I suppose you never thought you would have to pay a fine for not having a federally approved health plan ?

[phill4paul]

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Get government out of marriage and it ends this. If you are bold enough to dare.

[oyarde]

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Get government out of marriage and it ends this. If you are bold enough to dare.

States themselves will never give up all the free revenue they get from the license.Yes , govt has no role in any marriage , but it will continue and expand due to qualification for UnConstitutional govt programs , Social Sec, health ins requirement etc etc etc

[oyarde]

You have to learn to think like they do if you ever plan to meet them in the middle.They will terrorize you and take everything , all your wealth , Liberty , dignity.....

[Keith and stuff]

If there is going to be state government marriage, it has to be between x and y. Anything else is discrimination.

[phill4paul]

You have to learn to think like they do if you ever plan to meet them in the middle.They will terrorize you and take everything , all your wealth , Liberty , dignity.....


Gays or the government? I do not choose to meet in the middle. Gays or government would not have any influence on my life accept that both have a vested interested in influencing each and the other. Of the two one is the true cause of contention. Of the two the most direct threat is the government.

[oyarde]

Gays or the government? I do not choose to meet in the middle. Gays or government would not have any influence on my life accept that both have a vested interested in influencing each and the other. Of the two one is the true cause of contention. Of the two the most direct threat is the government.

The evil commie govt

[oyarde]

I care not about any peoples orientation nor do I have any judgement .

[WhistlinDave]

You know, it's interesting to note that when the voters legalized same sex marriage in Maryland in the 2012 election, the law they passed included a protection saying that churches, clergy, and related religious organizations cannot be compelled to perform or recognize or grant services to any marriage they do not agree with based on their religious beliefs. I forget the exact wording but it was extremely clear the intent of the law, and the voters passed it because it makes sense. I think it's a good model that should be followed everywhere since there seems to be such concern over violating religious liberty.

I think it was unnecessary to put that into the Maryland law, because no one has ever successfully sued, say, the Mormon church for refusing to perform a marriage for non-Mormons, or the Catholic church for refusing to marry Jews. Churches have always been free to set their own rules on marriage, and the laws regarding same sex marriage won't change that, even if they don't contain the blatant protections spelled out like in the Maryland law. But if it makes people feel better, I say put it in there.

Until we can get government out of marriage entirely (which I still think won't happen in my lifetime, because most people don't think the way we think), I think doing what they did in Maryland is a good solution to keep everybody playing nice together and make sure no one on either side of the issue is stepping on each others' toes while enjoying their own freedoms.

[phill4paul]

I care not about any peoples orientation nor do I have any judgement .

This is how I enter most every relation. Pig, dog, horse or human.

[oyarde]

You know, it's interesting to note that when the voters legalized same sex marriage in Maryland in the 2012 election, the law they passed included a protection saying that churches, clergy, and related religious organizations cannot be compelled to perform or recognize or grant services to any marriage they do not agree with based on their religious beliefs. I forget the exact wording but it was extremely clear the intent of the law, and the voters passed it because it makes sense. I think it's a good model that should be followed everywhere since there seems to be such concern over violating religious liberty.

I think it was unnecessary to put that into the Maryland law, because no one has ever successfully sued, say, the Mormon church for refusing to perform a marriage for non-Mormons, or the Catholic church for refusing to marry Jews. Churches have always been free to set their own rules on marriage, and the laws regarding same sex marriage won't change that, even if they don't contain the blatant protections spelled out like in the Maryland law. But if it makes people feel better, I say put it in there.

Until we can get government out of marriage entirely (which I still think won't happen in my lifetime, because most people don't think the way we think), I think doing what they did in Maryland is a good solution to keep everybody playing nice together and make sure no one on either side of the issue is stepping on each others' toes while enjoying their own freedoms.

There will be suing , there will be judgements, you are right about your lifetime and most certainly mine , what we will see , is more govt intervention, due , in fact to govt programs.

[Smart3]

I consider most organized religious groups as a hate group. When was the last time any religious group stopped a war?

Judaism has always been the primary opponent of war, in every single war Jews have been involved in.

[69360]

Churches as non-government voluntary associations are allowed to discriminate as they should be.

[phill4paul]

Judaism has always been the primary opponent of war, in every single war Jews have been involved in.

Go start a discussion with Sola Fide in the religion forum.

[oyarde]

Churches as non-government voluntary associations are allowed to discriminate as they should be.

And the SPLC ( GOVT Agency ) is free to list them as " hate groups " .....

[oyarde]

Then , once you are a hate group , there could be a push to lose tax exempt status held by love groups ......

[oyarde]

Not to worry , while your dumbass co worker is outraged by this , they will probably be working on nationalizing your 401k.....

[oyarde]

You guys better catch up , I think the evil fucks are ahead of some of you , not good.

[oyarde]

The Statist Marxists intend to divide and conquer you , they are winning.

[DamianTV]

I honestly don't care what people do with each other but this whole issue is trumped up to turn turn Christians into terrorists.

+Rep

The War on Terror is the War on ALL OF US.

[DamianTV]

Not to worry , while your dumbass co worker is outraged by this , they will probably be working on nationalizing your 401k.....

Why not? People are stupid enough to vote for abolishing the Bill of Rights.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k0he0cqHH20

[lib3rtarian]

Religions are already hate groups.

[William R]

bump

[PaulConventionWV]

Oh, it's Breitbart.

STOP THE GAYS! THEY'RE GOING TO DESTROY EVERYTHIIIIING. FIRST THEY'LL COME FOR YOUR HUSBANDS AND WIVES, THEN THEY'LL COME FOR CHRISTIANITY!

Let's forget the fact that a lot of homosexuals are Christians.

They may SAY they are, but violating God's law does not make one Christian. I'm not saying this out of spite, either. I'm just recognizing the fact that homosexuality is explicitly outlawed in the Bible.

If anyone here feels justified in saying getting a federal marriage license is a RIGHT, then we have truly lost our way.

[PaulConventionWV]

And the SPLC ( GOVT Agency ) is free to list them as " hate groups " .....

The government is "free".... haha, that's a good one.

[Elias Graves]

The entire point of all this, as with anything the government is involved in of late, is to divide and conquer. This nation's founding documents are rife with references to God but it goes out of its way to say that government has no business regulating religion. The founders recognized natural rights as flowing from a higher power and the founding documents did not grant them, but merely codified them. As soon as God is out of the picture, God given rights have no basis in being and are therefore merely constructs of man, subject to his whims.
The entire point of the separation of church and state is that nobody is compelled to belong to any religion. Any person who is legally permitted to marry can do so with the appropriate state documents and procedures, entitling them to whatever legal privilege a they may enjoy from said union. This does not, however, compel any church to recognize those unions, to sanction them or institute them.
The government clearly wants to equate this issue with civil rights and to label as a hate group anyone who refuses to recognize it as such. Most churches have prohibitions against many things that are legal under the law. Alcohol, gambling, adultery, lying, etc. with the wall of marriage broken, the state is now free to impose its will on any subject upon a church.
Think what you will about religion, but it has no means to compel anyone to act or refrain from acting on anything under the law. The Vatican does not control tax law or the deployment of military troops and never has in this country, so the whole religious war argument is a straw man. The state, on the other hand, is free to compel behavior at gunpoint if it so desires and can deprive anyone it sees fit of their liberty. When these lines get crossed, whether you agree with the victim or not, it is a loss for all of us.
I would not stand by for the government singling out any legal group no matter how much I disagree with said group simply on the grounds of equality. When one group is compelled to conform, we all lose.

[jbauer]

Oh, it's Breitbart.

STOP THE GAYS! THEY'RE GOING TO DESTROY EVERYTHIIIIING. FIRST THEY'LL COME FOR YOUR HUSBANDS AND WIVES, THEN THEY'LL COME FOR CHRISTIANITY!

Let's forget the fact that a lot of homosexuals are Christians.

So the government should or shouldn't FORCE a religious ceremony between two consenting adults from a religion that does not consent of said ceremony?

[Zippyjuan]

Saw this one coming a mile away. In two years time, Christianity will be illegal.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/10/North-Carolina-Case-Pushing-Federal-Constitution-Right-to-Gay-Marriage-Endangering-Religious-Liberty

Seems that some Christians have taken over the "persecuted religion" image for themselves from the Jews. "They are out to exterminate us!"

[Zippyjuan]

So the government should or shouldn't FORCE a religious ceremony between two consenting adults from a religion that does not consent of said ceremony?

They don't force any religion to perform any ceremonies.

[Antischism]

It's clear to me that a lot of Christian fundamentalists have persecution complex partly due to the Bible mentioning that "true Christians" would be persecuted in the end times. Or at least, they use that as a basis for their claims. I can't wait until there's a gay or atheist president (if ever); the fundamentalists will be foaming at the mouth. We'll truly see how bigoted certain people are despite claiming to follow the words of Jesus Christ who preached love and compassion.

[Anti Federalist]

Seems that some Christians have taken over the "persecuted religion" image for themselves from the Jews. "They are out to exterminate us!"

Wouldn't be the first time in history.

[Anti Federalist]

They don't force any religion to perform any ceremonies.

Failure to comply means the same thing.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Government gameplans in work 100% of the time... both foreign and domestic. How that segregation and divide working out in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Kosovo, et al. Always to devide the people and turn them upon each other and themselves. THEN, WHILE THE ANTS SQUABBLE FOR CRUMBS AGAINST ONE ANOTHER...
The entire point of all this, as with anything the government is involved in of late, is to divide and conquer. This nation's founding documents are rife with references to God but it goes out of its way to say that government has no business regulating religion. The founders recognized natural rights as flowing from a higher power and the founding documents did not grant them, but merely codified them. As soon as God is out of the picture, God given rights have no basis in being and are therefore merely constructs of man, subject to his whims.
The entire point of the separation of church and state is that nobody is compelled to belong to any religion. Any person who is legally permitted to marry can do so with the appropriate state documents and procedures, entitling them to whatever legal privilege a they may enjoy from said union. This does not, however, compel any church to recognize those unions, to sanction them or institute them.
The government clearly wants to equate this issue with civil rights and to label as a hate group anyone who refuses to recognize it as such. Most churches have prohibitions against many things that are legal under the law. Alcohol, gambling, adultery, lying, etc. with the wall of marriage broken, the state is now free to impose its will on any subject upon a church.
Think what you will about religion, but it has no means to compel anyone to act or refrain from acting on anything under the law. The Vatican does not control tax law or the deployment of military troops and never has in this country, so the whole religious war argument is a straw man. The state, on the other hand, is free to compel behavior at gunpoint if it so desires and can deprive anyone it sees fit of their liberty. When these lines get crossed, whether you agree with the victim or not, it is a loss for all of us.
I would not stand by for the government singling out any legal group no matter how much I disagree with said group simply on the grounds of equality. When one group is compelled to conform, we all lose.

[Christian Liberty]

It's clear to me that a lot of Christian fundamentalists have persecution complex partly due to the Bible mentioning that "true Christians" would be persecuted in the end times. Or at least, they use that as a basis for their claims. I can't wait until there's a gay or atheist president (if ever); the fundamentalists will be foaming at the mouth. We'll truly see how bigoted certain people are despite claiming to follow the words of Jesus Christ who preached love and compassion.

I don't know if he's atheist, but I know Justin Raimondo is gay, and I'd be fine with him being President.

Unfortunately, the vast, vast majority of gays and atheists, like most other people, want their own particular agenda to be supported by law, rather than actually wanting freedom.


They may SAY they are, but violating God's law does not make one Christian. I'm not saying this out of spite, either. I'm just recognizing the fact that homosexuality is explicitly outlawed in the Bible.

If anyone here feels justified in saying getting a federal marriage license is a RIGHT, then we have truly lost our way.

Its very possible that they could be Christian, merely struggling with sin. Although you are absolutely correct that homosexuality is a sin, and that the issue of gay marriage, if any government is to be involved (which I oppose) should be dealt with by states, not the Federal government.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Get government out of marriage and it ends this. If you are bold enough to dare.

Yep.


The majority that want marriage want the same federal benefits as traditional couples do. Do you as a "straight" understand the auromatic benefits "granted" by the Crown for your particular sexual bent?


Well, considering I am not, and never have been married, I don't.



Extremists make the most noise in media. At some point individuals and collectives have to stand up.


True.


And your "defense" of your belief, the defense of traditional marriage benefits leads you to the conclusion that "self-defense" is the course you should take. SMFH.

So you are FOR the Federal government when it is For you? Against it when it is not? You need to change your user name.

I didn't say I was for Federal anything. I don't believe it should exist. And I agree with you on keeping government out of marriage.

What I meant was that if any gay person tries to use the law to force churches to marry them or pentalize them for not doing so, that church has the right to defend themselves through any means necessary, even physically if need be. I wasn't supporting the Federal government doing anything.

As for marriage: my ideal is the same as yours, getting government out of marriage. If there is going to be any invovlement of government in marriage, the states should define it without interference by the Federal government.

[Antischism]

I don't know if he's atheist, but I know Justin Raimondo is gay, and I'd be fine with him being President.

Unfortunately, the vast, vast majority of gays and atheists, like most other people, want their own particular agenda to be supported by law, rather than actually wanting freedom.

Unfortunately, many bigoted fundamentalists would refuse to vote for an atheist or homosexual simply based on that, even if they're running on a solid political platform. I get the feeling that even if a future president were gay or atheist, they would feel forced to hide it simply because they'd lose a lot of votes from red states.

[Cissy]

You have to learn to think like they do if you ever plan to meet them in the middle.They will terrorize you and take everything , all your wealth , Liberty , dignity.....

The model for a believer's thinking is Christ. Is He insufficient to intervene or protect a believer?

[Sonny Tufts]

This nation's founding documents are rife with references to God but it goes out of its way to say that government has no business regulating religion.

The only reference to God in the Constitution is the expression of the date it was signed, which is no more theologically significant than a mention of Thursday or January are references to Thor and Janus.



with the wall of marriage broken, the state is now free to impose its will on any subject upon a church.

This doesn't follow at all.

[The Free Hornet]

Here it comes! Religions not recognizing gay marriage will be hate groups

Saw this one coming a mile away. In two years time, Christianity will be illegal.

There is zero relationship between your thread title, your post commentary, and the article to which you linked. If you were any more hysterical, I'd assume you were gay yourself or, at the very least, a 'wide stance (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Wide%20Stance)' Republican.

Thread rating: 1 star.

Rep: -1

I'm tempted to report the thread as just a fucking waste of space but ... not gonna.

[Christian Liberty]

Unfortunately, many bigoted fundamentalists would refuse to vote for an atheist or homosexual simply based on that, even if they're running on a solid political platform. I get the feeling that even if a future president were gay or atheist, they would feel forced to hide it simply because they'd lose a lot of votes from red states.

I'm evangelical, baptist, and probably "fundamentalist" by your standards.

Nonetheless, I personally would have no problem with a gay or atheist president provided they agreed with my political views.

The thing is, for the average evangelical who thinks a lot like Rick Santorum does, there's literally no reason any gay or atheist would want to agree with their views. Maybe there is one, sure, but there's no good reason for it. So I can't even imagine a gay or atheist who agreed with that type of platform. I think some of them would discount that person because he's gay or atheist, while others would not, but frankly, I can't even imagine such a person even existing. While not all religious fanatics (A category I proudly put myself in) are Santorum-lites, pretty much all of the Santorum-lites are religious fanatics. I doubt you'll be finding any in the gay or atheist communities.

I'm a little different. While I have my nuances of course, I'm mostly in line with Ron Paul. So even though I'm an evangelical and even though my theology is probably similar to that of the fundamentalists you're talking about, our political agendas are different. While it does so happen most gays and atheists lean liberal, there is also no particular reason why one couldn't agree with me on politics.

Of course, in today's rabid PC world, anyone who opposed the gay or atheist candidate would be declared to oppose them BECAUSE they are gay or atheist, even if there was some other, politically substantive reason why.

Personally, I'd prefer someone who agreed with my values as much as possible, but moral and religious values are also secondary to political values and morality where it is directly relevant to politics (In other words, a candidates honesty is more important to me than his sexual purity, even though I believe lying and sexual immorality are both sins). I'd absolutely vote for a gay or atheist who agreed with my political values, provided he wasn't running against someone who agreed with me even more than he did.

[Peace&Freedom]

The only reference to God in the Constitution is the expression of the date it was signed, which is no more theologically significant than a mention of Thursday or January are references to Thor and Janus.


The poster said the founding documents, plural, not just the Constitution had references to God. The Declaration premises its view of rights superseding government on the Creator. Almost all the early treaties reference Biblical doctrines such as the Trinity. Representatives sent to the Continental Congress had to make an oath affirming Christian doctrines as a condition for going to Philadelphia and representing the colonies. And so on.

As for the broken wall of marriage, it is a fact that many nations that have imposed acceptance of gay marriage on the country, have ended up criminalizing churches teaching that homosexuality is sinful. Already in some states where legislation banning "bullying" has been developed, attempts to amend it to clarify that expressing moral objections to homosexuality could not be called "bullying" were specifically defeated. There is an agenda to criminalize historic views on the subject.