Standing up to the gay brownshirts

Standing up to the gay brownshirts

The problem with homosexual activists is that they just don’t want to be tolerated. They want everyone to change their own lives, and ways of thinking, to embrace their “lifestyle” wholeheartedly. Such is the case in Atlanta, where a country club has sued the city to block a $500/day fine for refusing to extend domestic partner benefits.

The city passed a law four years ago requiring businesses to extend all the same spousal benefits to couples registered in the city as “domestic partners” as would be extended to people who are actually married. But now the country club is fighting back, pointing out that the city has exceeded its authority and indeed is even going against the newly passed amendment to the state constitution that bans same-sex marriage.

This is why constitutional amendments protecting marriage are so important. This isn’t about so-called “homophobia.” This is about protecting our right to hold to traditional morality, a Christian morality based on the will of God as expressed in Scripture and Tradition, a constant teaching passed down by the Church over 2,000 years. No group should be able to force the majority to throw out their faith using the force of law, but they’re trying.

  • O.K. this is waaayyy too close to me here in B’ham!  I’ll be alerting my “network”!  Thanks Dom for the “heads up”.

  • CWN today links to an excellent article by Thomas Sowell on about Gay Marriage ‘Rights’.

    Well said, sir!

  • What is it with these Georgia country clubs teaching the rest of America how to stand up against political correctness (Hootie Johnson vs. Martha Burk, the latter hoping for a Cinderella story there at Augusta) and moral depravity (the subject of this entry)? 

    I guess it’s too much to ask for, say, a Catholic priest to testify against homosexual marriage before the Massachusetts legislature.  But hey, if these country clubs want to do what’s right, we should take what we can get and be thankful for it.

  • We would do well to note that a constitutional admendment was not necessary to protect divorced persons from scorn or discrimination in jobs etc even though many religious faiths held that divorce was immoral. In the same vein laws protecting people from discrimination based on sexual preference ought to be strenously argued against.  People should be able to believe that certain kinds of relationships are immoral according to their own consciences.

    With respect to spousal benefits, why not create something called a “household benefit” that would be available for any persons who choose to make a long term contract to live together and take care of one another—could be available for adults regardless of the nature of the relationship (parent-child, sisters, brothers, friends, married, etc.) 

    Moving to this sort of approach would negate all arguments regarding discrimination with respect to homosexual couples and keep us from going down the path of Canada and certain European countries where individuals and institutions may not hold the belief that homosexual acts are immoral for them or their members.