A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.

30 year old Bradley LeShawn Fowler, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.  Fowler filed his claim against Grand Rapids-based Zondervan Monday, alleging its Bibles' references to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment," the paper said. He filed suit against Tennessee publisher Thomas Nelson in June.

Zondervan says that even if Fowler's claim is credible, he's suing the wrong party. A company spokesman told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids that Zondervan doesn't translate the Bible or own the copyright for any of the translations but relies, instead, on the "scholarly judgment of credible translation committees."

U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused Monday to appoint an attorney to represent Fowler in the Thomas Nelson case, saying the court "has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims."

Fowler, who is representing himself in both lawsuits, says in his complaint against Zondervan that the publisher intended to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder."

So here we go...the gay agenda is suing publishers of Bibles and if only they could sue the original authors of the Bible (Moses, Paul, Matthew, et.al) or even the inspiration for the Bible (God), they still won't be happy.  On a recent episode of Breakpoint, Church Colson noted that "Fowler is suing the wrong party, but perhaps he realizes he is likely to have difficulty hauling the real author into court."

Colson calls what is now happening in the continuing saga of litigations by the gay community "Molly Coddling" and then tells us that "we ought to take such attacks on Christian teaching seriously: We are going to see many more of them if same-sex “marriage” is foisted upon us by the courts."

As Seana Sugrue explains in The Meaning of Marriage, marriage is a pre-political institution, rooted in biology and moral obligations. Sugrue writes, “The reality of sex differences between men and women, leading to the potential for offspring, is essential to the pre-political foundation of marriage.”

But marriage as a political form of social order, independent of the state, “is precisely what advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ seek to change,” according to Sugrue. “Marriage rooted in procreation and sexual differences is to be replaced by marriage for the gratification of two consenting adults.”

Yet Sugrue warns that unlike traditional marriage, “same-sex marriage requires a condition of soft despotism to exist.  In claiming for homosexuals the right to marry,” she reasons, the “state also claims for itself the ability to declare what constitutes marriage . . . It transforms marriage from a pre-political obligation into its own creation.”

But as an artificial creation of the state, same-sex “marriage” is “an institution that needs to be coddled . . . Its very fragility demands a culture in which it is protected.” This means, as Sugrue argues, that “once marriage becomes a statist institution for the sake of consenting adults, the state will increasingly be called upon to create the social conditions to protect these unions.”

The need for coddling means the state will use public education for this end, and align itself against churches that refuse to recognize same-sex “marriage.”  So, the state has to use its power against two of society’s civil institutions: the family and the church.

I think Sugrue is right: We are already seeing the courts go after institutions and people who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of same-sex “marriage” where it is imposed. State-ordered gay “marriage” is an attack, not only on legitimate marriage, but upon religious freedom and the freedom not to have one’s children indoctrinated into alien ideas about marriage.

We need to understand the reasoning here so that we can present this argument in a winsome way to our neighbors. And we better be supporting efforts to pass constitutional amendments and laws defining marriage as one man and one woman; the issue is up in Florida, Arizona, and California this year. We also need to find out what the presidential candidates want to do, because they will be choosing the next Supreme Court justices who will ultimately decide this issue.

If we do not act, lawsuits against Bible publishers will not any longer be a joke, but a despotic reality. Of course, lawsuits against churches and pastors will become a reality and Christianity may well be headed for the underground.

It is not is not the purpose of this blog to give sermons, exegete Scripture or to do a Bible Study.  However, in light of the many social changes taking place in our civilization, e.g. Redefining marriage, pedophilia, polygamy, and incestuous relationships, I feel compelled to point out what is taking place in our society today in light of what the Bible says.

There are many social issues beyond the subject of same-sex marriage which prove that our culture is in decline.  Among these are the decaying of our ecological system, the forced recognition of other cultures on America rather than mandating the recognition of our culture on those who would move into our country.  Then, there is the secularization of our culture with more emphasis on human accomplishments and government intervention to aid in the lives of special interest groups.  There is also the legislation of protecting a minority "class" (notice I didn't say "race").  Finally, there are the many cases of litigation against businesses and persons who, desiring to practice their religious beliefs, are forced to keep their religion to themselves and provide services to those these "protected classes."  The so-called "protected classes" infringe on a person's conscientious objections and superimpose their base desires on society at large.  AS an example, I merely cite the case of Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco having to end their adoption services altogether rather than be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to place children with same-sex couples. In the Boston case, Catholic Charities was prepared to refer same-sex couples seeking to adopt to other providers, but that was not sufficient. 

I believe this and other infringements on religious liberties can be explained from a cursory reading of Paul's letter to the Romans, found in the New Testament.  Let me quote from chapter 1, verses 18-32.  Please pay close attention to the bold print and the three items underlined within this text.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Within the bold print did you notice that this seems to describe our time?  Our culture?  Our society?  Hoping to keep this article brief, I would be wrong not pointing out God's three-fold relinquishment of humanity found in verses 24, 26, 28. 

First, God gives those who reject  Him over to the desires of the heart.  When God is said to "give over" it denotes a deliberate act of resigning control over what is passed on.  This basically means that if you want to do your own thing, He won't stop you.  The result is the heart will turn away from what is right to what is thought to be the best.  The right is not always what we think is best.  In the Bible, the heart is picturesquely the seat of the emotions.  Put in today's context God is handing this culture over to the freedom from Him for which it yearns.  The desire to be independent of God in achieving its end shows itself to be nothing higher than the desire for degrading impurity.  Society, then, is emotionally wrapped up in doing its own thing!

Second, God gives those who want to believe a lie and serve creation instead of the Creator over to shameful passions.  How does one "serve" or "worship" the creation?  Are we talking about Animism?  Pantheism? Panentheism?  Not necessarily.  Included in the creation are items like sexuality, business, pleasures, even the government.  In America today, there is a craving for government solutions to everything from poverty to the right to privacy; from civil rights to protection from God (i.e. religion).  So, we see people who would rather government enact laws to protect them from religion (read religious bigotry) and this becomes a passion!  It is interesting that in light of this Bible passage, Paul goes beyond the general things like pleasures into specifics like homosexuality.  Today's society is finally coming to grips with the demands of the gay community to be  "acknowledged as a special class," to be "protected," and to be given special privileges and civil rights which heretofore throughout all of human history has been within the purview of one man and one woman - marriage.  To have one's passions degraded and become shameful brings on a God-forsaken character.  And when character is compromised, society is on the brink of disaster.

Third, God gives those who seek after their own passions over to a depraved mind.  Here and for the last time, Paul emphasizes the direct link between humankind's rejection of God and its disordered state.  When a man's mind becomes "depraved," it means that man has now been set free from God!  Psychologists and Psychiatrists are always intrigued by the power of the mind.  As a Licensed Professional Counselor and one who has many graduate hours in psychology, I can truly state with measured certainty that "when the mind goes, so goes the character." 

The character of American society is a never ending downward spiral toward the state of depravity.  Mankind may have by and large come to the place in which it sees no room for God in the world - that God doesn't exist, or worse, that God is irrelevant.  Well, according to the Roman letter we've been considering, this truly typifies depravity at its worse.  Three times Paul says "God handed them over" and this underscores the point that in striking free of God's immediate control, mankind has not escaped God's overall ordering of His creation.  The simple fact is that man cannot escape his own nature and the nature of the world as God made it.  It is God Who has handed our society over to its desires and the endless pursuit of its satisfaction.

Just remember man's "freedom" to go his own way still leaves him within the limits set by God, whether he rejects God as real or simply tries to ignore Him.

I offer these thoughts since I am free (right now) to speak out on the decline of our society and the ending of the traditional values under which we once lived.  In a few years, I might not be able to say these things without repercussions.  Since the freedom to practice religion is under threats today, I do foresee many lawsuits coming for those who preach from passages like these.  The end result of a depraved civilization (in this case) is that Civil rights will prevail over Constitutional rights (like the First Amendment) as redefined by a depraved court.

In my next blog, I will list some of the most recent actions against religious organization by gay (special interest) groups that show just how close we are to having religion banned from our society.

Recently, an African-American friend of mine noted that in order for him to have "respect" in his community, come November, he must be able to walk out of the voting booth saying proudly that he voted for Barack Obama.  I asked him if he had, at any time in the past, ever voted for a Republican candidate for President.  (He has been voting since 1976.)  He told me he didn't think so and did remark that when he told some of his black neighbors back in '84 that he was thinking about voting for Reagan, he was branded "An Oreo Cookie" and a traitor to his race.

For those of you readers who don't know what an "Oreo Cookie" is in the African-American community that is a person who is "black on the outside and white on the inside."  During this presidential election year you will hear a lot about those few black republicans being traitors to their race and Oreos.  Michael Steele, the former Lt. Governor of Maryland, who is also black, is a conservative republican and currently the Chairman of GOPAC.  He has been branded a "black Rush Limbaugh" by Bob Novak in Human Events and "a betrayer of all that Martin Luther King, Jr and the civil rights movement stood for" by the Huffington Post.  Yet, he remains firm on the true conservative principles that set him apart from Obama and his Democratic ilk.  Steele, along with other black conservatives like Tom Sowell and Larry Elder and conservative politicians like Alan Keyes, jurists like Clarence Thomas and Presidential Advisors like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have been attacked by those of their own race as turncoats, defectors, betrayers and Oreos.

Why?  Because Michael Steele and his fellow African-American conservatives realize that the Democrat Party doesn't really care for the plight of the black community.  A little bit of history will illustrate this.

First, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 to abolish slavery.  Slavery was primarily and institution of the Democratic Party.  After all, following the civil war, Democrats were involved in the founding of the Ku Klux Klan. 

The poll tax, which was enacted in southern states from 1889 to 1910, was a Democratic institution.  Because payment of the tax was a prerequisite for voting, it disenfranchised many blacks and poor whites who couldn't afford to pay it.

Democrats instituted Jim Crow laws (laws which imposed racial segregation on blacks) throughout the South.

When black and white student activists made "Freedom Rides" on Greyhound buses through the South in the spring of 1961, Alabama police departments refused to protect them from the KKK and angry white mobs.  Many freedom riders were beaten and harassed at bus terminals - including the one in Birmingham, Alabama where Police Chief "Bull" Connor arrested everyone on the bus for violating segregation laws.  Chief Connor was a Democrat.

Democrats were the original segregationists who opposed desegregation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (including Senator William Fulbright who Bill Clinton awarded the Medal of Honor and Senator Al Gore, Sr., who vehemently opposed equal rights for blacks).  If not for the support of white Northern Republicans, former President Lyndon B. Johnson would have not been able to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  It should be noted here that Martin Luther King, Jr. supported and endorsed Republican candidates - not Democrats - for Congress in the south.

Democratic Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia was a Kleagle in the KKK and used the term "white n----r" twice in a TV interview with Tony Snow on a March 4, 2001 broadcast of Fox News Sunday.

Now the question is: Why have we seen over 92% of the African-American vote (since 1964) going to the Democrats?  Although better than 9 in 10 blacks vote Democratic, it is interesting to note the a Pew Research Center poll taken in 2006 found that 75 percent of black Americans believe "liberals" push too far to keep prayers and religion out of the public schools and government and only 17 percent of African Americans want to legalize gay marriage (these are liberal Democratic positions!  Now, this is an overwhelming statement of traditionalist convictions.  Martin Luther King, Jr. was a traditionalist.  In almost every public statement he made, he called upon God to inspire him and deliver justice.  Bill Cosby is also a traditionalist.  He travels the country urging black Americans to return to the American traditions of self-discipline, self-reliance, and self-respect.

Cosby, like Michael Steele, Thomas Sowell and other black Americans, understand that moral relativism is not helping blacks overcome their historical disadvantages.  The key to success, according to Cosby, is a strong traditional education and hard work.

Yet the Democratic Party wants the black community to be satisfied with decaying schools, an educational public school systems which has turned into more of a baby-sitting service that an enterprise for learning and mental growth.  They want the black community to think that the government in general, and those more advantaged in particular, "owes" them for past offenses and current disadvantages.  The Democrats prefer blacks to be "enslaved."  This slavery can no longer be to the White Devil Slave Masters of the past, but to the "system," i.e. the government which doles out entitlements like its candy and tells them to "remember on election day who helped you with these handouts."  In the world of psychology, we call this "brain washing."

Now lest you think I am accusing blacks of being brain-washed, let me quote Bill Cosby in a speech he gave in October, 2006 to the NEA.  "Black people today don't want to take care of themselves or their children, black men don't want to be responsible for parenthood, black women don't want to be free to pursue happiness and self-respect.  We have bred a generation of men and women who think that it is up to someone else to take care of them and their needs.  When will these young men and young women take on personal responsibility and get their self-respect?"

We have read and heard in the media, from commentators and pundits alike, that Bill Cosby is "an Oreo."  To me, he is a thinker who upholds traditional values and believes that the government cannot be held responsible for absent fathers, babies having babies, black on black violence, rap music advocating stealing guns, f---ing hos and crazy bit--es, and doling out welfare and food coupons as a way of saying "here is what is owed to you."  What this country owes to the African-American community is the freedom to pursue a life without government interference and with dignity and pride.  It is a right to self-reliance.  The conservative ideology (and to a great extent the Republican Party) guarantees blacks and all races these freedoms.  The liberal ideology (and the Democratic Party almost as a whole) makes no guarantee except a life in the projects, a little bit of money each month and a failed education system which will never assure anyone that he or she will be smart enough to fill out a job application, much less read and write.

In this election year, to those of the African-Americans community who find it hard to vote for Republican John McCain I would only suggest voting for Alan Keyes, who will likely run as an independent.  He is an African-American who understands what being free truly means.

Recently I was asked what I considered to be the hallmarks of a social-economic and political conservative.  Today I decided to codify my so-called Conservative Identity Factors listing ten items to which any S-E-P Conservative should subscribe.  I print them here for your perusal:

1 - Limited Federal Government (in size and responsibilities).  With a limited federal government lower taxes and lower spending resulting in fiscal responsibility would become the rule and not the goal; 
2 - Personal Responsibility - self-reliance instead of governmental solutions to problems;
3 - Strong Defense and Homeland Security (that results in a staunch opposition to terrorism, communism and all forms of tyranny);
4 - Free Markets, Competitive Capitalism and Advancing Private Enterprise (this includes opposing capital gains and high corporate taxation that would be passed on to consumers - freedom to maintain private control of economic power and that government not compete with capitalism);
5 - Traditional Values - as espoused by our Founding Fathers (not just Evangelical Christian values only);
6 - Individual Liberties as based on the Bill of Rights;
7 - Elimination or Radical Modification of Entitlement Programs which call for Affirmative Action and Preferential Treatment advancing a quota system (this does not include the elimination of programs which assist the elderly and handicapped, but does include finding ways to Privatize Social Security and Medicare);
8 - Shifting the Control of and major funding to Education, Transportation, Housing, Urban Development and Human Services to the states.  The Federal Government would render little or no interference in the operation of those programs;
9 - State's Rights - That division of powers granted in the Constitution is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal Government;
10 - Little or no preemptive use of the military or military aggression without due cause.

So far in the 2008 political races around the country, there is only candidate for the House of Representatives - Ron Paul of Texas, not one candidate for the U.S. Senate and only the Constitution Party's candidate for President - Chuck Baldwin - who would adhere to all 10 of these Factors!  Are we ready for a new political party?  Maybe.  Can we rehabilitate the Republican Party to a basic return to the Goldwater-Reagan doctrine of true conservatism which once prevailed in the late 70's, 80's and 90's?  Not likely!

For now, I guess the best solution is to solicit men and women which closely align themselves to most or all of these factors, motivate them to run for office and push for their election.  This would be the real meaning of "Change" in the political arena.

In our current presidential contest, John McCain would hold fast to the second through sixth principles with a slight bow to the first and ninth.  Barack Obama would possibly support only the last of these factors.  So, I guess, we have a "somewhat" conservative candidate in McCain and a very liberal candidate in Obama.

In the days to come, I intend to write about a series of concerns that would effect our entire traditional values and the culture as we know it.  To me, the hottest issue outside of the economic downfall and the Iraq War, is the sweeping social changes which are taking place in the United States.  In particular, I refer to legalization of Same-Sex Marriages in California (and before that Massachusetts).  On July 15th, the Massachusetts legislature approved a measure that would overturn a ban which prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they couldn't legally wed in their home states.  That being said, if approved, Massachusetts would join California in allowing non-residents to obtain marriage licenses and having their marriages solemnized. 

The first question which comes to mind is this...Why would any gay couple travel from their home states to either Massachusetts or California to get married, only to return to their homes and not have it recognized?  Obviously this would not make sense.  So there must be an agenda brewing and that agenda is nothing other than having those "married" gay-activitsts return home and start the litigation process.

A gay couple I know went to California during the last week in June to get married.  They have lived together for nearly fifteen years.  Before they left, this couple contacted a couple of law firms to see what their status would be went they came back to Virginia.  Of course, their marriage would not be recognized in the Commonwealth.  Being somewhat wealthy and very much moving in the "activist mold," this couple has moved to put one of the largest law firms in the Norfolk, Va area on retainer with a view of challenging the anti-same sex marriage amendment to Virginia's Constitution.  If pursued, litigation papers would be filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern Virginia District in Norfolk where, no doubt, Judge Raymond Jackson would be itching to hear the case.  Should Chief Judge James Spencer give Jackson the nod, we would see one of the most liberal Clinton appointees to any federal bench rule on the case.  The total number of liberals in that District Court is equal to the number of conservatives.  There is little doubt that regardless of what decision is handed down, the case will be appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA.  Quite possibly, within a year of that court's decision and appeal will be forwarded to SCOTUS.  By the time it gets to the Supreme Court, Barack Obama will have already appointed at least one extreme liberal to that bench - possibly two.

Obama is on record as saying his idea of a great justice is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  In her twelve years on the bench she has as yet (in 328 so-called "ideological" cases) to vote on one social issue with the conservatives, making her the only one on the bench to have never done that - NOT ONCE!  Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter have a couple of conservative opinions during that time, and Justice John Paul Stevens has been known, on rare occasions, to rule on the conservative side.  Obama loves Ginsburg and thinks she has a full hold on the Constitution as a "living document."  Obama, in a November 11th interview with George Stephanopoulos said that there is no greater Hegelian mind on the court than Ginsburg.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, he was the German philosopher who propagated the dialectical method which stated that movement, or process, or progress, is the result of the conflict of opposites. Traditionally, this dimension of Hegel's thought has been analyzed in terms of the categories of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

To understand this, let's consider the recent decision by SCOTUS to strike down Washington D. C.'s gun ban.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a separate concurring opinion to the one offered by John Paul Stevens merely added that the 2nd Amendment is antiquated.  That there are no militias and only militias were entitled to keep and bear arms.  That it didn't matter what was in the minds of the original authors of that Amendment, "today's society with its needs, and mandates, require this antiquated portion of the Constitution to be ignored and leave to the states and localities the rights to make laws banning the sale, ownership and use of any arms."  Notice she says, two hundred and fifteen years ago, the passing of the 2nd Amendment was the thesis, gun ban laws of today is the antithesis and she would say the synthesis is ignoring or abolishing the 2nd Amendment altogether.  Isn't it interesting that this ardent opponent of states rights all of a sudden embraces states rights when it comes to bans on arms.

I have no doubt Obama will use Ginsburg as his model for Supreme Court Nominees and I would not be surprised, given Obama's previous stance on gun control, that he will use this recent 5 to 4 decision as a litmus test, just as Conservative Presidents once used Roe V Wade as their litmus.

O K, back to the real issue at hand,...will a more liberal SCOTUS overturn 31 state constitutional amendments, DOMA and a host of other state laws in the name of equal rights and protections for Gays?  You bet ya.  Now what will that mean for religion in general and Judeo-Christianity in particular?  I have no doubt that activist gays, once they have successfully overturned the states to have their marriages recognized and to force states to issue gender-neutral licenses, will not stop just at the clerk's office  and the court's steps.  They will want nice places for their nuptials, like churches and synagogues.  Ah, but there is freedom of religion, right?  Not so fast friend,...remember, Hegelian Dialectic would come into play again when SCOTUS hears the next suit affecting marriage and the churches.  The thesis is that government cannot intrude on the free exercise of religion, even the use of church-owned facilities.  The Antithesis is "all marriages are 'spiritual journeys' and should be accorded the use of religion's (i.e. church's) facilities.  With an Obama Court (Ginsburg being the model) what do you think the Synthesis will be?  Easy answer, that today's society must be protected from religion (not religion protected from the government).  Therefore, religion has no right to speak-out against homosexuality, its practices and its desire for marriage recognition; and failing to allow for the use of the church's buildings will be interpreted as discrimination.  Any oral or written statements to the contrary will be interpreted as a "hate-crime."

Now, let me return to the gay couple recently married in California, I believe that during the next year, their attorneys will be spending an enormous amount of prep time as they gear up for this big challenge.  By 2013 or 2014, and after at least two appeals, SCOTUS will have rendered its decision.  This will have taken about six years.  Add six more years for litigation against churches and synagogues then by 2020 there will be absolutely no more "Freedom OF Religion," rather there will be "Freedom FROM Religion."

Consider this fact:  I personally know of another gay couple who want a Virginia wedding license and a church wedding.  A conservative Baptist Church down the road from where they live has a very nice sanctuary and fellowship hall they say they would one day like to utilize but the church's conservative stance will prohibit them from using their facilities.  They are talking about suing under the banner of civil-rights violations and using the new anti-hate crimes laws which now protects gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered persons as a special class entitled to civil-rights.  If they, or any other couple is serious about this, it appears that churches  will be sued and under a GINSBERG MODEL majority SCOTUS, will be forced to allow their facilities to be used for gay marriages.  Failing to follow the rule of law will, most definitely, result in the church's loss of their 501 (c) 3 status and any contributions made to the churches will not be tax-deductable.  Tack on the huge attorney and court fees and you will have the dissolution of many places of worship. 

It won't stop there.  Since there will be no more freedom to practice religion, rather only freedom FROM religion, pastors and clergymen and women will be forced to perform such nuptials or face fines, jail time or worse.  Since I live and am a clergyman in Virginia, let me use my state as an example of what I am saying.  In the Circuit Courts of Virginia, I am "bonded" to perform marriage ceremonies which the state acknowledges to be legal.  In the event the amendment to Virginia's constitution is overturned, in order for me to perform ceremonies which the state sanctions, I would no longer be allowed to use "discretion."  Say, as the liberals have argued in California, gay marriages fall under the same category as interracial marriages, if I say, or if it is proved that I have performed a single interracial marriage (which I have), then I cannot use the "discretion" argument to deny performing a same-sex marriage.  Moses married a black woman so I have no problem with interracial marriages - in fact, there is Biblical precedent.  But when America is "FREED FROM religion, the Bible will have no relevance in arguments and use of discretion and practice of my religious beliefs will be ruled an infringement on the civil rights of a protected class.

One final thought should be given here:  The anti-hate crimes bill which was sponsored by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry was co-signed by Barack Obama.  This bill puts GLBT in the category of "protected" classes and subject to special acknowledgment under Civil Rights laws.  The real danger is not me being forced to perform same sex marriages as I still retain the right to no-longer perform marriages - period.  The problem is what I will and what I will not be allowed to preach from the pulpit.  I cannot endorse candidates for public offices from the pulpit, even though most African-American pastors I know allow the NAACP to come in and endorse Democratic candidates all the time.  So, quite possibly, I may be forbidden to preach that homosexuality, like adultery, incest, bestiality, etc. is a sin.

In the weeks to come I will have more to say concerning this hot-button issue.  This, after all, is a matter of faith and government.  Hence, the title of this blog.