Gay Marriage Advocates Forcing Churches To Perform Weddings

There is an internal debate in some conservative circles regarding whether or not we hurt our own cause in the defense of traditional marriage by looking to the government to defend our case. Under a Republican President the course seemed safe; however, that path may have been shortsighted. Perhaps the better path would have been to argue that the government had no place in deciding what marriage is. Meaning, the government has no right or place in the marriage covenant.

The “problem” with this argument for many social conservatives was that it would likely lead to gay marriage by attrition because the law would no longer forbid gay marriage.

This is where the “argument” usually goes off the rails. Most social conservatives find this outcome unacceptable. I understand that, I really do.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Eagle Rising updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I believe that marriage is a covenant between two people and a Holy God. A Holy God who has clearly told us that homosexuality is sin, and that marriage is a holy and supernatural union. So I take my support of traditional marriage very seriously.

However, my freedom of religion is also important to me — and I don’t think most traditional marriage proponents realize how much danger that freedom is in.

If we had fought to keep the government out of marriage we would be in a better position to defend our churches. Unfortunately, now that the government has declared that gay marriage is “legal,” they will defend homosexual couples using ideas like “equal protection” to force churches to perform gay marriages. Before gay marriage was “legalized,” churches could argue that they had no duty to treat gay couples equally because gay marriage was illegal. But now, by turning gay couples away at the wedding chapel, they open themselves up to lawsuits based on discrimination.

Christians are already being persecuted for their stance in the business world – we’ve seen florists, bakers, photographers and wedding planners all sued for their refusals to serve gay weddings. The obvious and inescapable conclusion is that our churches will soon come under pressure from the activists and the government that must now defend them. The moment the government decided that gay marriage was legal, it took on the mantle of co-defendant, and now anyone who stands against gay marriage is their enemy.

Before you decide that I am paranoid, consider this. Great Britain recently legalized gay marriage and gay activists have already begun their assault on England’s churches.

BRITAIN’S first gay surrogate parents have launched a legal challenge to the Church of England’s ban on same-sex marriage… under the terms of the Act, religious organisations have to opt in to offer weddings… The Church of England and the Church of Wales are not offering weddings… Mr Drewitt-Barlow, who has been in a civil partnership since 2006, said: “We’ve launched a challenge to the Government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.”

You might be confused as to why they might be suing, seeing as they’ve already won. They got their way, gay marriage is legal in Great Britain, so why are they still upset?

But homosexual couple Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow have set out to demolish that protection for churches because it stands in the way of their coveted church wedding.

“It upsets me because I want it so much—a big lavish ceremony, the whole works.”  The duo filed a lawsuit against the Church of England, demanding that the court compel all Anglican churches to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies in their houses of worship.

gaymarriage-puzzle-410x328The “why” is that marriage wasn’t the point. There was much greater purpose behind the assault on traditional marriage.

“We’ve launched a challenge to the Government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.”

You might say, “well that’s Great Britain… it could never happen here in America.” Oh yeah? Then you might be surprised to find out that there are already places considering forcing churches to rent their facilities for same-sex weddings.

The purpose is to “normalize” the gay lifestyle and to crush dissent. They can’t just win legalization — they must turn the opposition into pariahs. Which they’ve done fairly successfully. Once they turn us into monsters and outsiders, they’ll have us effectively silenced… and when we’re silenced no one will hear our cries for religious freedom.

Make no mistake. Our churches, our faith or ability to practice our religion the way we believe it should be – these things are all at stake. You may believe that they “can’t” force us to do these things. Are you willing to gamble your liberty on your disbelief? The danger is very real.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

About the author


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to a friend