After Utah same-sex marriage ruling, Slippery Slope tilts more

Concerning this After same-sex marriage ruling, Utah seeks to maintain status quo | The Salt Lake Tribune:


Tom Usher

So, when will polygamy be a constitutionally protected right? When will the age of consent be dropped altogether because everyone, including children of all ages, have to be afforded equal rights with adults? Does that include driving cars? When will pedophiles be treated on par with homosexuals as a constitutionally protected class? They've already been deemed to have a "mere" sexual orientation rather than a mental illness. Were they too supposedly born that way, all of them? Not one was molested into it and just being the victim become victimizer?

Where will all of this anarchy end or will it? If the pattern holds, then nearly everything all the permissive youths are saying today that they would never allow will end up being allowed when they are older even over their objections. They'll look back at their youth and say that things were better when society hadn't yet slipped farther down into the cess of anything-goes amorality, utter Godlessness.

President Putin of Russia recently said that judges making rulings that run contrary to what the vast majority of the people want is undemocratic. Here Utah has it's law overturned by a solitary judge who, based upon a bad US Supreme Court decision by Anthony Kennedy falsely claiming that Texas didn't have a compelling state reason to disallow sodomy, simply decides that homosexuals can't be denied the right to marry each other. Well, if Texas didn't have a compelling reason, if the slide into decadence isn't a reason to forbid something under the law, then what's the compelling reason to forbid pedophilia? The same argument against homosexuality pertains to pedophilia. If it didn't stand up concerning homosexuality, surely it can't stand concerning pedophilia or bestiality or necrophilia or ... name your poison. Name your cess.

Okay, so I'm a Christian and don't believe that the secular system is right anyway. Why am I speaking on this? It's your system. I'm saying that homosex is a fundamental error. I'm saying that no one should choose to err. I'm not out shooting people who err, as such shooting would be erring on my part.

This is why I'm just passing through. This is not my home. The flesh is weak though the spirit may be willing.

The deck is stacked here. The innocent are born into steadily progressing decadence. They are subject to abuse to one degree and type or another. It hardens every single one of them. The pain and suffering and stress, etc., inflicted on humans by humans, diminishes the potential of everyone and of the whole. In the meantime, homosexual activists are too busy falsely imagining that they are doing the right thing even though even Godless science says that homosexuality is fraught with problems over and above those of heterosexuality and regardless of whether homosexuals are "accepted and affirmed" by the rest of society.

Heaven help us!


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.