Tuesday, June 30, 2015

"Marriage" Persecution Has Begun

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Within hours after the Supreme Court ruling on marriage last Friday, a newspaper changed its policy regarding what can and cannot be said in editorial and op-Ed columns.

Christian leaders in the state say, "Already we see evidence right in our own state that we will lose our First Amendment right to free speech simply because we do not agree with today's SCOTUS decision..."


The Harrisburg, Pennsylvania newspaper wrote in celebration Friday night, "As a result of Friday's ruling, PennLive/The Patriot News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage."

"These unions," they say, "are now the law of the land, and we will not publish such letters and op-Eds anymore than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic."

They wrote, "The march of progress is often slow, but it is always steady."

Progress?

They defined "progress" in the United States as another "step toward the ideal of equality envisioned by its founders. And we are all more free as a result."

The American Family Association of Pennsylvania does not see it that way.

In a press release they say "as predicted," the marriage decision handed down today has initiated persecution and the silencing of those who believe in natural marriage. It has begun in earnest.

They say within 3 hours after the ruling was handed down, the newspaper changed its policy.

The AFA group says, "What better way to say all are on board with this decision than to silence the voices of those not in agreement.

AFA spokesperson Diane Gramley said they are already seeing the effect of what Justice Scalia said would happen-debate is being stifled.

She said, "This decision is not a march to progress, but the exact opposite."

She also noted the irony in the newspaper's statement regarding the pride our founders would have in the Court's decision.

"This is a very ironic statement," she said, "as sodomy was illegal in each of the thirteen colonies because the Founding Fathers fully understood acceptance of this sin against nature and nature's God was dangerous to the country."

The conservative Daily Caller became aware of this revised version of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and jumped on it.

Within hours, the Caller had published an article--- and almost immediately following the article, the newspaper began getting very strong push back.

They quickly revised their earlier statement to say essentially they would continue to allow free speech for "a limited" period of time.

The more they spoke, the more duplicitous they appeared to be.

Their explanation of the events surrounding marriage, and their decision to silence those who disagree with their agenda defines a confused, deeply committed activist news media:

“In the more than four decades since, a union that was viewed as unnatural and even a hideous provocation to violence is now commonplace and celebrated. On Friday, the United States crossed a similar threshold, continuing a long road to acceptance of same-sex unions. And this news organization now crosses another threshold. As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.”

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Strong. Be Prayerful.


26 comments:

  1. The title should read:

    Marriage "Persecution" Has Begun

    The irony of course is the complaint exists in the modern equivalent to our forefather's newspapers, belying the complaint, a venue you have and do censor yourself.

    Do I have a 'right' to publish here? (hint: the answer is 'no')

    There is no first amendment right to publish in someone else's newspaper - we've all had American history, we all know that.

    Yes any paper can refuse any editorial they want for any reason. This one was clear and even gave examples of other opinions they don't allow free-reign at their newspaper.

    You don't want to marry someone of the same-sex, everyone gets that, and you don't have to - ever! But if you want tell us everyone else they have to act as if they shared your opinion, or tell them just how horrible other people are because they don't agree or actually would, well -

    You have your own news venue here, publish as you see fit and give other newspapers the same freedom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be so nice if the only choice before Christians were not to marry someone of the same sex. But that is not the case. Just ask Catholic child services of Mass. (who used to help one third of the foster/orphan children of the state), or Arlene's Flowers, or photographers who do not wish to celebrate with you. No, we are all forced to "celebrate" this abomination--or else! Our religious freedoms--the right to live by our consciences and beliefs--have just been destroyed.

      Delete
    2. As is often the case Anonymous, you have missed the actual issues:

      Every single one of the cases you have mentioned were decided because of civil rights violations, not marriage:

      Catholic Services voluntarily withdrew from Massachusetts. They had been complying with the state's civil rights law banning sexual orientation discrimination for 10 years placing children with gay families. It was when they stopped doing this they were told they might lose their United Way funding. That was it, no one shut them down, no one drove them out, they changed how they were behaving, choosing to start disobeying a decade old law that had nothing to do with the marriage equality law, and shut down. Drama Queens.

      Arlene's Flowers LLC is also about civil rights laws, ditto the photographers. And of course no one is asking a service vendor to 'celebrate' anything, just provide the advertised service consistent with the law regarding public offerings.

      All the SCOTUS ruling does is add 13 states to the list with marriage equality, that's it. There hasn't been a right to religious discrimination in a public offering in Washington state since 1949, a bit late to whine about it now.

      Delete
    3. There has never been a right to religious persecution ever in this country. It appears that's about to change.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    4. Oshtur, What if everyone, even people in government positions, and judges also, followed the example given above? Do you suppose there would be unconstitutional acts of suppression of free speech?

      This is the point of the article, is it not?

      Delete
    5. What this ruling does is work it's evil against the constitution, for what should we suppose the same court should do if a case comes up to them about a Christian's right to follow the teachings of Jesus about what marriage is?

      It should hold that a Christian who desires to follow the teachings of the Bible has a constitutionally protected right to decline any invitations to decorate for homosexual weddings, because their participation is not required by anyone's real constitutional right.

      They should admit that their decision handed down on June 26th was arbitrary, and had no constitutional foundation.

      Delete
    6. Crazy, isn't it? If the branch were holy, so would have been the fruit, as well as the roots.

      Delete
    7. "Yes any paper can refuse any editorial they want for any reason."
      Yet, not a single cupcake producing bakery can refuse the right to serve anyone.

      Delete
  2. Vishanti. The difference between Gary's web site and that of the Harrisburg newspaper is that he often says he has an agenda. The paper, and other news operations do not admit they also have an agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that paper said they weren't going to publish editorials from various anti- groups, this is just about adding one more to the list.

      Don't know if that's an 'agenda' but its 100% constitutional and doesn't infringe on anyone's right to free speech.

      Delete
  3. oster, the paper has an agenda. please tell me you know that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well since all newspapers I know of have an editorial board I guess you could use the word 'agenda' for that for all newspapers.

      But you seem to be saying that in a pejorative context and I don't understand that. Can you point out a newspaper that lets any official editorial be published without review or chance of rejection?

      Delete
  4. Most newspapers claim to be unbiased in their reporting, although most of us know they are not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Editorials and op-eds are what was mentioned, not 'reporting'. Your bringing this up makes me think you are unintentionally conflating two different parts of a newspaper into the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gary, a newspaper calling an issue closed is not persecution. Just so you can see the difference, here's an example of persecution - people passing a law that does nothing other than prevent a smaller group of people from marrying the person they love.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oshtur, the very fact that Gary does not restrict the voicing of your opinion places him where the newspaper has left. The belief of freedom of journalistic endeavor and the individual's right to freedom of speech are being upheld here... would you do the same?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When Gary lets me write a blog post get back to me. ;)

      Delete
    2. I think you get the point the person was making. your voice is heard here, even in opposition.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    3. That was the point, Gary doesn't allow opposing views in the blog posts which is the equivalent of an opposing editorial or even a guest op-ed. If he doesn't there's no reason to expect another paper to do so.

      Delete
    4. Oshtur, Can you prove Gary doesn't allow opposing views on this blog? Please show us some proof. Is there any reason we should believe you?

      Delete
    5. It seems we have for quite certain, an unconstitutional majority in the Supreme Court now, doesn't it?

      Delete
    6. Oshtur, what are you talking about? Your views are clearly being allowed to be published in response to Gary's points. These other publishers aren't even allowing that, so there's no correlation.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    7. Craig I am writing the equivalent of letters to the editor not editorials or Ed-ops. If I was writing one of those it would be the blog entry itself.

      Again Gary has had the policy this paper announced forever.

      Delete
  8. Live by the sword....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Apparently in the minds of some, to speak against sin, and encourage righteousness, is wrong, while working to destroy whatever is good should be given unconditional license.

    ReplyDelete

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