Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Princeton Professor: " Gay Marriage And Religious Freedom Cannot Coexist"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, told a Washington DC audience, "The whole [gay marriage] argument was and is that the idea of marriage as a union of husband and wife lacks a rational basis and amounts to nothing more than 'bigotry' reflecting animus against a certain group of people."

"Therefore," he said, "no reasonable person of good will, we are told, can dissent from the liberal position on sex and marriage, any more than a reasonable person of good will could support racial segregation and subordination."

He says, "You've heard the analogy drawn a thousand times. And this is because marriage, according to redefiners, consists principally of companionship"---and the "companionship of people committed to mutual affection and care."

And since those same sex  marriage proponents view those who dissent from the liberal [secular progressive] orthodoxy as bigots, or the equivalent of racists, they have no reason to support the religious freedom of dissenters."

George says, "Any distinctions beyond this one they condemn as baseless."

The battle, George says, is bigger than the issue, and ultimately "Gay marriage and religious freedom cannot coexist."

This is his explanation:

Professor George says marriage in the mind of the secular progressive, is "simply based on romance."

I strongly suggest you read the summary of his speech which is linked above.

Most same sex marriage activists either don't know or refuse to accept the idea of marriage as a conjugal relationship between a wife and a husband. This is why most of the great philosophers, all the major world religions and every successful society in human history has recognized marriage as the relationship between a man and a woman. And have condemned same sex relationships.

He says some liberals or secular progressives still believe there can be some kind of "grand bargain" in which gay marriage is allowed and religious freedom of dissenters is supported. That can't happen as far as George is concerned because "liberal secularism is a comprehensive doctrine in competition with other comprehensive doctrines."

A "comprehensive doctrine" is a view or worldview that includes human nature, meaning of life, dignity and destiny.

George says nowhere is the competition more visible and on display "than in the struggle over marriage and sexual morality."

He says secular progressives tolerate other comprehensive views as long as they present no serious challenge or threat to the dominance of the secular progressive worldview.

When meaningful resistance is perceived by the progressives, the threat is "smashed in the name of equality."

George observes that there are still some liberal progressives who value religious freedom and true tolerance---but he believes those tolerant liberals will ultimately lose their battle against liberals.

Therefore, ultimately gay marriage and religious freedom cannot coexist.

I agree with George.

Yesterday afternoon we learned that the administration has moved what is considered the last necessary piece of policy to implement President Obama's aggressive anti-discrimination executive order.

This is related to organizations that contract with the government. Specifically effected is the faith based organizations that contract humanitarian work around the world.

The final LGBT anti-discrimination piece provides expanded rights for homosexuals while further reducing religious freedom and its expression even in faith based organizations.

The nations largest homosexual advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign has hailed the actions of the president.

This is today's example of Professor George's explanation as to how the secular progressive agenda moves forward---and crushes religious freedom as needed, when it is deemed a threat.

If indeed the progressive left primarily acts when they view the resistance from people of faith as becoming effective, as Professor George suggests, how will people of faith respond in the face of this new reality?

Will we become more silent to avoid more persecution and aggression toward our biblical beliefs?

Or will we make an historic stand for the faith of our Fathers and that of 70 to 100 million Americans.

Do we have the fortitude for such a spiritual stand in prayer, in action and in conviction?

Personally I'm certain Professor George is right.

Because of the reason he presents, I do not personally believe that the same-sex "marriage" movement and religious freedom can coexist in the culture.

I hear Joshua speaking to the people of God, "Now therefore, fear the Lord, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the Lord.

"And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:14,15).

Be Persuaded. Be Courageous. Be Strong. Be Prayerful.


  1. This and abortion seem to me to the be the two major things that need to be cleaned up, and we could add pornography and what goes along with that, and gambling.

    If those things were gone ( made illegal, and enforced by law) it would be much easier to love America. Yet God still loves no matter what.

    I would rather receive his blessings than to see them fall away.


  2. Secular progressives require the propagation of a false gospel to support their own secular religion.

    See "Vicky Beeching and the Lesbian Gospel"

  3. Our constitution guarantees each of us certain rights.
    We have freedom of speech, but nobody is required to listen to what others say. We have freedom of the press, but nobody is required to read anything.

    There is a reason for this. Rights do not place obligations on others. If they did, that would be akin to slavery. If one man has a right to food, then another must provide it. Same goes for health care.

    Gay rights is an attempt to force people to accept a life style that is offensive to many. A couple run a wedding chapel in Idaho and they are forced, against their will, to perform a same sex wedding. Their right to marry (it that is what you want to call it) should not impose obligations upon others.

    We all enjoy a right to life. The only obligation I have to maintain your right to life is that I do not take your life. The only obligation wedding chapel operators have when it comes to same sex marriage is to not interfere with their "right" to marry.

    On another note: The only difference between freedom and a dictatorship is "Who makes the decisions." It is impossible to make any decision involving money that does not discriminate. If I eat lunch at Subway how is that not discriminating against Wendy's, or Quiznos, or any other restaurant, even the other Subway in town? If you outlaw discrimination you outlaw freedom.

    In a free country:
    I decide what light bulbs I will use.
    I decide what toilet I will purchase.
    I decide what my child eats at school.
    I decide if I want health insurance and if I buy it, I decide what is covered.

    In Obama's America, Obama decide all of these things.

    What would happen if marriage did not exist?

    Some men would abuse the ladies, leave them pregnant and abandon them. The ladies would be considered "damaged goods" and they and their children would be condemned to a life of poverty. They would also become a burden on society. Marriage exists to protect women and children.

    Do same sex couples need protection? I think not.

  4. A highly persuasive argument. Evil will never accept good, unless it's a compromised good. God calls Christians to not compromise with evil, whatever the personal cost

    Pauls writings to the church are very clear, we are called to be set apart, not to be one with the world. We do so at great damage to the gospel message and endanger our very salvation.

    The doctrine of 'once saved always saved' is a farce. Revelation is very clear about what will happen to the apostate church.

    Don't be deceived! We will reap our reward, if, we don't give up!

    Stand firm Christians!

    Craig in Lacey

  5. This false equality propagation (of the gay agenda) moves the government to interfere with the natural rights of the people, something our contstitution is clearly against. Evidence of this fact is the bakers who get ordered by judges to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, and other things that come up, for as the Bible teaches, there is a way that seems right unto a man, but it ends in the ways of death. (see Proverbs 14:12)

    The house of the wicked shall be overthrown. (Proverbs 14:11)


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.