Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)
It's no surprise to me (nor should it be to anyone) to read members of the left-wing mainstream media happily celebrating the acceptance of sexual depravity in a liberal enclave like New York. So many folks might have glossed over the personal celebration of the legalization of "gay marriage" in the state written by Time Magazine's news director Howard Chua-Eoan.
As a quick sidebar, this Chua-Eoan won the Media Research Center's "Quote of the Year" award several years ago for blaming Jeffrey Dahmer's murder/cannibalism spree on the right's "homophobia." So yes, it's clear this guy is firing on all cylinders.
Anyway, like I said, most conservatives - if they even bother to pick up a copy of Time - probably didn't take the time to read the stomach-turning celebration of legalized depravity that this uber-leftist penned. But there was something very significant buried in the article. This is a point that many of us conservatives have been making, but that earns us scorn and ridicule for suggesting (despite the myriad of evidence that proves us correct).
For that reason, and that reason alone, I will subject you to reading a bit of this end-zone celebration dance from Time:
Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn't the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me? Of course, there have been and will be congregations and churches that allow gay men and lesbians to be married in their midst and to bless those unions, recognizing that God loves them just as much as Governor Andrew Cuomo does. But some rich and influential religious institutions are not only free to continue to reject gay men and women as equal beneficiaries of all aspects of faith but will now also rally their congregants to reject politicians who are willing to abide with this extension of secular civil rights ? no matter how much acceptance there is of same-sex marriage elsewhere, no matter how many wedding announcements appear in the New York Times.
I write this as a deeply religious Christian who is pained that the church that otherwise provides me with so much spiritual comfort and joy will never allow me to marry within its walls. Some clerics may be "liberal" enough to turn a blind eye to gay relationships so long as they do not have to recognize them, much less grant them any kind of imprimatur. And as of now, even in New York, religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such a simple act of charity.
Whoa. Can I now demand an apology from all of the hate-filled bigots who wrote to me and called me all sorts of names over the years for expressing the fact that this entire "gay marriage" movement is not about establishing any "legal right" or "equality," but about criminalizing Christian doctrine, and discriminating within the law against the rights of conscience?
Every time there has been an example - whether it was Catholic orphanages shuttered for not allowing adoption by gays, or photography businesses fined for not taking pictures of gay "ring ceremonies," or many other events we've documented - that proves the ultimate objective of these sexual anarchists, I've been told that I am exaggerating and hyperbolizing as the result of my own "hatred" towards gays.
Hmmm. Let me just reiterate some of Chua-Eoan's points in case you missed them: "Marriage without a church.isn't the real thing." In other words, the law doesn't go far enough. "And as of now, even in New York, religious institutions cannot be compelled to perform such a simple act of charity." In other words, it's such a small thing to legally force people to violate their convictions and conscience, to disobey the God they worship, and to condone and celebrate something their faith teaches them is an abomination (I mean, it's not like our ancestors founded a new civilization to avoid such violations of conscience or anything), surely that can happen soon.
Don't miss the dirty little secret of the "gay marriage" movement buried right here in this story: it doesn't end with "marriage equality rights." It ends when freedom of expression and religion are things of the past, and every person is forced to bow their knee and accept the moral perspectives of those on the left.