William C. Duncan at National Review Online on how the Democratic National Committee's platform language calling for the national redefinition of marriage also contains serious threats to religious liberty:
"...The most interesting sentence is the feint about religious liberty. It’s hard to imagine a less generous concession. The party, in this statement, is committed to allowing churches (not individual people of faith or religious organizations) to “decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament.” This exceedingly narrow language should be taken as a warning to believers — the party is willing to let churches perform marriages in accordance with their doctrines (gee thanks) but that’s about it. On all of the other predictable religious-liberty conflicts (employment benefits, social services, business decisions), the plank says nothing. The italicized language even seems to suggest the party would consider removing the ability of clergy to civilly solemnize marriages.
Marriage is not a partisan issue and good pro-marriage Democrats will surely object to including this outlandish statement in the party’s platform. It should, however, focus the minds of those who care about marriage and religious freedom about what is at stake if the people who think this is a good idea are given power."


It’s really unseemly to insinuate — in any way — that HRC had anything to do with the violence that occurred today at FRC.





"...This isn’t the first time that supporters of traditional marriage have expressed themselves. The usual method is for them to cast ballots in state elections to preserve marriage. Over 46 million voters in 32 consecutive states have quietly voted to preserve traditional marriage. In no state election has same-sex marriage ever won.


