whatever happened to abraham lincoln's pronouncement in the gettysburg address at hours that the government of the people, by the people and for the people. we make the decisions for ourselves. it is rapidly being replaced now by a government of the courts, by the courts and for the courts. let me get to the bottom line. if the u.s. supreme court redefines marriage to an good same-sex marriage, we all know you and i all know that this will not be the end of the matter. an avalanche of court cases will be filed unrelated issues that we can even imagine today. we believe or should i say i believe that religious liberty will be insolvent from every side. indeed, that authority happened. pastors may have to officiate same-sex marriages and they could he prohibited from passages of scripture. those who refuse to comply will likely be threatened legally and as the years go by, some will be subjected to prison sentences. christians who operate as mrs. will be required to dance to the government's tune. we've all seen examples of photographers and bakeries and pizza parlors being required to serve that weddings whether they want to or not, whether they have convictions are not and they have to on penalty of closure or bankruptcy. christian colleges may be unable to teach scriptural views the marriage and relationships. accrediting bodies will tell them, it is the law of the land or so say some judges. i am most concerns about the course will require a parent and children. a few weeks ago, president obama asked the legislatures to prohibit parents from seeking professional therapy from state licensed counselors who help their children deal with identity crises. what business does this man have in telling parents how to help their confused and disoriented kids, especially those who may have been abused sexually. this is outrageous. in some dates, counselors have already lost their life is for trying to help troubled children in this way. these and other concerns i could list. my time is gone are why we have called this press conference. the u.s. constitution does not grant the judiciary authority to interfere with religious liberties with parental rights in with the additions of marriage and the family. here we stand and we will not go where the u.s. court seeks to take a class. >> well, thank you dr. james dr. james dobson. too obvious and members of the press that are here in the we are grateful for you taking time to cover something vitally important to us. we have already made you aware of the website, defend marriage.org and a handout with the pledge on it. i would like to make you aware that we have now had somewhere over -- [inaudible] i have brought with me, just for the sake of argument are example that there is no small number of people, single spaced over 100 pages of signatures that we would like to draw your attention to. we believe in time they will grow into the hundreds of thousands if not perhaps a million or more people in this country who will take the position that we have taken. we understand that america is a land of free fault. in my remarks i want to address the religious aspect of the whole debate. i have made copies. for those who would like a copy, i will just pass this around. i want to read my remarks. either way, at the end of the formal presentation, we will open up a time of q&a. i want to begin by saying i am not here to offend or hurt. the vast majority in this country are like the vast majority of the rest of us. they simply want to be left alone to live their life accountable to the choices they made. worst three decades there's been an effort to normalize same-sex marriage in america. driven by propaganda campaign and promoted by access to the homosexual community, aided and abetted by judges who make rather than interpret the law a business that has in large measure been bullied by our financial lives, liberal academia, liberal members of the press and family members of the clergy in america who have exchanged biblical truth for heresy in a quest for cultural relevance. now the supreme court of the united states is about to deliberate a matter that has been settled in heaven and effort in god's holy scripture in god's created order. in 26 states, federal judges have overturned the vote of citizens who said no to same-sex marriage and landslide victories. in a more states legislators pass laws allowing same-sex marriage would not allow a citizen to vote. in three states have the citizens of this state voted for same-sex marriage. we witnessed an attack on god and the veracity of his word unparalleled in american history. judges, legislators and citizens who vote for same-sex marriage have said god and his word are incorrect on marriage. perhaps unknowingly they've chosen to deny god's word and observable nature and have created an illusion that most americans approve about which god forbid. i am not surprised some recent polls have shown the majority of americans now say they approve of same-sex marriage. we have heard a steady drumbeat for the past decade of the one-sided national discussion on the subject. but there is also a time when the majority of americans in this country a separate restrooms in separate classrooms for black american citizens. the majority often gets it wrong. and who wants to be labeled a bigot for declaring what their heart truly believes about and alternative lifestyles. marriage can no longer include same-sex couples that iraq can follow. the court could no more redefines harwich then it can redefine gravity. neither is in the courts legitimate jurisdiction. today i declare before heaven i will not deny god nor his word to curry an immense favor. with great caution should anyone in alleged the notion that one can change what god has said. we must remember to deny the creative order is to attack its very nature. his word is unequivocal. so god created human beings in his own image. in the image of god he created mail, a man, female, a woman. he created them, therefore a man shall have his father a man, a mother of woman and become united and they shall be one flesh. those passages found in genesis 1:27 and 2:24. marriage will always remain the union of a man and a woman for three reasons. reason number one, a union between a man and a woman. haven't you read, jesus replied at the beginning the creator made them male and female and sad for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and so be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh said they are no longer two, but one. therefore, what god has joined together let no man separate. number two, the created order verifies what god's word says. the male and female are designed to be joined together to partner with god in the creation of another human being. number three, the union of a man and woman reveals a spiritual lesson. the testament is the bride and groom patiently awaiting the marriage supper during which he will be joined for eternity with his bride the church. marriage is a picture of that promise. it features 531 through 32 says that this way. for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. this mystery is very great but i speak concerning the relation of christ and his church. attends our rejection of god in the bible. the genius of america and religious freedom is you don't have to accept or believe any of what i just said. you can choose to embrace that god designed -- that god designed men and women in the marriage illustrates truths or you can reject all of that and make your own alternative truth but you cannot change what god has spoken and verified. many have tried and history. documents are folly. in the past, stating such a position was known as practicing religious freedom and freedom of speech, both constitutionally protected rights, rights of necessity will be sacrificed if the court approves same-sex marriage. to the members of the supreme court, i say there are tens of thousands of people of faith, in fact hundreds of thousands if not millions whose faith and conscience will not risk that any decision that fundamentally rejects their god, his word in the national order. if a majority redefined marriage, thousands of christians will respectfully refuse to acknowledge such a ruling has any jurisdiction over their lives. in the spirit of dr. martin luther king, we view any attempt to enforce a willingness on just and our duty of the constitution or import really our duty to our god will force us to disrespect it. we will obey god rather than man. our presenters may stand legal authority in this country. max weber is the founder and chairman of liberty counsel. he is the former head of liberty law school in lynchburg, virginia. he's argued two cases before the supreme court and presented briefs in more than 35. >> thank you, rick. just for those that will come after me, i will ask you to spell your name for the media that they will be able to get back. my name is matt. i am founder and chairman of liberty counsel, an international nonprofit litigation education and policy organization. offices in florida, washington d.c., virginia and california and hundreds of affiliates around the country and we also have a major presence in israel. we are here because of the impending supreme court decision. this week i released an article that i wrote and you can read it at stream.org. stream was recently founded by james robinson that has an international ministry and is the founder of the stream which is an online media publication and in that article i began talking about 2009 manhattan declaration was signed instituted by an inspired by the late chuck colson and co-drafted by professor robbie and timothy george. in that particular manhattan declaration events at these words and i will quote. we will fully and aggression may render what is caesar's but under no circumstances will we render what is god's. five years later the future is here with the impending decision that the united states supreme court. as a result of what it's about to take place with the decision of the institute, keith fournier who will speak after me, a christian catholic, me, an evangelical christian began to protract this document called the marriage pledge and we have circulated that among different leaders in manhattan declaration has over half a million diners. this one here has just been posted online an everyday hundreds and hundreds more are signing this. we brought leaders together first and with leaders from a wide good of evangelicals, various protestant denominations orthodox christians, jewish, leaders all around the country from various perspectives they don't agree on theological issues that they are unified in this one area and that is marriage as the union of a man woman and on our watch we will not readily allow that to be deconstructed because whenever it happens we by experience and history have known the government uses the police power. it happens around the world and it is what will happen if we cross this line. the leaders as diverse as franklin graham and other orthodox clergy's entries, jewish leaders have come together unified around one issue and the pledge that defends marriage, or do we also have a copy here to pass out? i want to touch on a couple things up in this pledge. one of the things we are unified in his reaffirm the marriage and the family has been inscribed by the divine architect into the natural order that marriage predates every civil government, wasn't created by a legislative act whereby a referendum of the people. it predates every civil government throughout millennia of history have affirmed what is obvious part of the order. marriage is the union of a man and woman. it doesn't confine any religion and is not created by religion. it is not a religious belief. religion affirms that which is part of the natural creative order a civil government affirms that as much as it affirms gravity. you may not like gravity. you may prefer to fly to jump off a building or click. gravity is what gravity is. you can resist it, but it's fair, part of the natural creative order. the factor is part of our natural order, humans have male and female con together for not only unity that procreation and having the best initial cell the unit on which the rest of society is built to raise children and to produce those as productive citizens is the central structure of our humanity that transcends time, generations and geography. not created by any civilization. it is part of our creative order. as such we come to a letter from dr. martin at the king junior when he wrote a letter from the birmingham jail. dr. king was asked a question. why do you expect some love and others who don't respect. about in that letter that there are two kinds of laws. there are just two hours and just laws are in which the earthly lives and can harmony to a higher law prints both an unjust laws than those laws that collide with higher law. laws that are just have the obligation to obey those laws to obey those laws that are run just have the duty to disobey those because i agree with saint augustine and augustine and other millennia and the teachings of the judeo christian church and history of scriptures that unjust law is no law at all and it cannot be given respect of the law. certain small areas of life in which we encounter an unjust law. an unjust law is not what denominational doctrines are just wins the society, but something that collide with the natural creative order. when we find one law like that it is no law at all. it is in coalition with the higher law principle. neither the united states supreme court nor any civil government has the right or authority to change the natural creative order. as we've seen in our united states supreme court a couple of different principles. number one, the court has candidly stated in the confidence of the people. in 1992, justice sandra day o'connor in the planned parenthood as one of the justifications for upholding the night to 73 roe versus wade and that is the self-preservation of the authority of the supreme court. unlike the executive with a figurative power of the sword and unlike the legislature that has a figurative power to pass laws, the judiciary has almost no authority to enforce its own laws. it has to rely upon the other branches of government to do so. the authority of the court rests not in the fact it has a power of the sword, but in the confidence of the people and if they lose confidence in the people, they lose their authority and therefore we took such a drastic shift in the teen 73. the people will wonder what are you doing? how can we trust it to make these major social shifts and if we can't trust you, we then do not accord your decisions the way that they ought to give a decision and as a means of self-preservation, even if it was wrong, we can't deviate because we will lose the trust of the people and does lose their own authority. that is a candid assessment, but an accurate assessment. the only authority is the thought that people trust is doing its job consistent with the rule of law and adhering to the document they are intending to interpret. not that they are ideological individuals trying to push based upon their own personal beliefs. the supreme court is not always been right. in 230 cases it is overruled itself so the previous decisions were wrong. in the 1800s, the supreme court, a racist and bigoted judge collided over history and ask for rights as a citizen and as a black american. he was denied those rights and when the case went to this racist jurors, there is no justice for you at this high court because we believe blacks are inferior human beings. close quote. how bigoted, racist and wrong is that decision? it is not the rule of law now. it is repudiated in everyone's mind today. it was not the rule of law at the moment it was panned as a decision. buck versus bal, under the commonwealth of virginia, a victim of the eugenics movement taking place around the country. three previous generations have low iqs so the commonwealth of virginia was taken into a facility and forcibly sterilized her. she sat just as before this high court and infinite justice, she got an opinion from the famous justice oliver wendell holmes who wrote the infamous decision. no justice for you at this high court because quote, three generations of imbeciles are enough, close quote. because she had low i.q. and her generation, it was okay for the commonwealth of virginia to forcibly remove the undesirable. unfortunately it spread like wild fire in the eugenics laws to place all over the united states and was picked up by a man by the name of adolf hitler became a platform for the eugenics movement. during the nuremberg trials when the were put on trial, which trial, what case did they say to justify what they were doing? you do the same thing in america. it is called buck versus bal. how shameful that is. no one today will justify that decision is consistent with the rule of law and if there was not the rule of law in everyone's minds, if you ask them, it wasn't the rule of law than. those decisions are examples of supreme court decisions that run contrary to the natural creative order. there is no lot then and no one now and we are now facing one of those decisions for the united states supreme court. if we can get the issue right whether there is a constitutional right in the united states constitution, if they cross this line and event to write a same-sex marriage in the united its constitution, i say in the leaders that assignment and many more around this country that we will consider entry such a decision by the united states supreme court in the same way that we in history have you tried scott and buck versus dell. i say this with all due respect to someone who argues before this court the decision will be an unjust law and we cannot and we will not give it the respect of the rule of law. that goes too far. that is a line that we cannot cross. not because we want controversy. the last thing we want is thing we wanted to fight fight over this issue. we know from history and experience once a government seeks to redefine the natural creative order of marriage, the first collision is with religious freedom because it's a big year something. this is an issue in which religious freedom is under attack. at the chick-fil-a founder says i believe marriage as the union of a man and woman, you can't have chick-fil-a and my city or my district or they get kicked out of college campuses because the founder believes in marriage is union of a man and woman were for example, if a photographer says i don't discriminate against somebody because they are gay. i photograph all kinds of people but i can't autograph and event even more than people who are caucasian. but if they start burning crosses i can't autograph that event either. she has been told no if you don't photograph the event, that you can't do photography and darlene flowers or for a southwest come a 7-year-old lady has been friends with one of her clients for nine years. baked cupcakes and cookies. doesn't discriminate because he is gay. one day he says i want you to cater my wedding with another man and she said i'm sorry. that is contrary to my religious beliefs. but there's another florist down the street i can do a good job for you. you would think that would develop into respecting develop into respecting a person develop into respect and the person would say i understand her conviction. i will go down there. thank you very much and can do need to patronize the forest. a civil complaint was filed and they try to bankrupt or personally and financially with her business as well. this is a zero-sum game. the reason we cannot comply is because we know this will collide with religious freedom and there are certain names we cannot, therefore will not render to the state when they collide directly and unequivocally with what god requires of each and every one of us. we stand united together in defense of marriage. while there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural created order in the common good, but this -- good, that this is the line we cannot and will not cross. i want to bring up the deacon. >> founder of common good foundation and come to alliance. -- and common good alliance. and a catholic clergyman. i'm also on the path towards ph.d in my own church. it's my honor to stand with all of you ended in order to be part of this putsch piggybacked pastor rick, i don't drop it was intentional but it is certainly good optics because i'm standing with the thousands in fact standing with millions and i'm standing in a 2000 year history of the christian church reaching beyond that to mount sinai go all the way back to the beginning of creation itself. and defending marriage is what it is. between one man and one woman, intended for life, open to life, and formative of family. and family is the first society. it's the first school, the first church, the first government come the first economy, the first mediating association. the entire social order is built on the family. and i stand fully within the tradition of my church and the fact that classical christian tradition in saying it is not just a religious position i am espousing but written in a natural moral law so eloquently pointed out, a lot of the non-the human heart and to be known for the exercise of reason we all know it, cross culturally and across civilizations. yet we do stand at a point in our history where nine black robed justices may decide that the natural moral law no one has any standing in the jurisprudence of the united states. once again as matt pointed out that have been wrong before and it would be wrong now if they did. i would only add dred scott, the instance to instance decision of roe v. wade. cost is 60 million of our youngest neighbors now not with us. so i'm honored to be a part of this pledge come pakistan with other christians, other jews of people of faith in and people of goodwill in making it very clear we will stand for marriage. and we will do all we can to ensure that marriage continues as what it is. i would only add one thing to what's been said so far. there is, in fact, a 2000 year christian history. so i not only stand for these names but on the shoulders of giants. and this is not the first time in its history that we've entered into a culture that has rejected a natural moral law. turned against god. what do we do as christians? we do what christians do. we try to infuse once again like leaven and a loaf that truth that elevates all humanity no matter what the religious belief. so should the court make the wrong decision, not only will it be an unjust law, and that is absolutely correct, it will be one which we cannot obey just as the early apostles could not stop preaching. what will that mean? i don't know this. i don't know but i do know this. god will triumph. the truth will triumph. and, finally, in gratitude to my evangelical protestant friends my other catholic friends, and orthodox christian friends and jewish friends, for having the courage to stand together. this is a silver lining in this cloud, this dark cloud. we are bring brought together. this is not about protecting ourselves but we love this nation. not only am i a member of the clergy, but next year i will have been married for 40 years. i have five grown children and i just had the privilege of baptizing my seventh grandchildren. i want the american experiment to continue. it was rooted by our founders and is very christian tradition of recognition that rights come from the creator, they are endowed and they cannot be taken away by a civil government, the judicial, legislative branch or even in the executive. thank you very much. ms. boynes: hello, everyone. my name is janet. i have a ministry that assist in helping men and women lead the life of homosexual. -- homosexuality. i'm based out of minneapolis and i live in texas. i also enjoy helping churches have a better understanding how we work with those that are in our churches that struggle. i believe in compassion without compromise. we will have passion but we will not compromise the gospel. i think far better than anyone who has lived the life of homosexuality have an understanding why the gay community do not want someone like myself around. because we have the opportunity to debunk everything they are saying. why don't you see me on cnn or today or msnbc or good morning america? because they have all the gays and lesbians on their show. that if i come on the show i will tear down their belief system to advance my goal is to debunk everything that they are saying, to be true what i know is july. we have tragically watched our nation caved in to homosexuality propaganda. more and more people are falling for the lie that homosexuals are born that way. well, we know that's a lie anyway. homosexuals have successfully made inroads into hollywood, television, our children's public schools, universities, our government, the president of the united states, and now our churches. homosexual marriage is growing in america. reality which is currently being litigated in our nation's supreme court as a potential federal civil rights. but we know this is not a civil rights issue. the color of my skin is an immutable unchangeable characteristic. i can't change from black to white, but i did live a homosexual life for 14 years come and i've been out 17 so we know that change is possible through the power of jesus christ. if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, no one can even imagine or predict the ramifications that this decision will have. i know from personal experience that homosexuality is a false identity that is rooted in sexual or emotional brokenness. same-sex marriage is a rejection, reality of god's design for how to raise our children. when we reject reality, we harm our children. see, i grew up in a family of seven kids with four different fathers. i understand what it's like not having a dad because of all those who are fathers, none of them was around. every child deserves and wants a father and a mother. this is critically important to their sexual development. in the 14 years that i lived as a lesbian i saw firsthand that there is no substitution for the role of a father and mother that they put in a child's life. each parent offers a unique contribution to the health and well being of our children. i know this to be true because what i was in homosexual life with a woman who had two children, i tried to fulfill the role of a daddy. at the time i realized i wasn't equipped or capable of being a father to these girls. more and more children, family members and friends, those who were never predisposed to the homosexual before are now experimenting sexually, trying out homosexuality and becoming hooked. those who seek help to lead -- to lead the life of homosexual and they soon discover that there is no longer any help out there. homosexual activists and their homosexual attorneys are pushing to ban any type of ministry such as janet boynes ministries. which help people exit homosexuality. their goal is to indoctrinate our kids. their goal is to silence us. their greatest fear is men and women like myself who have walked away from that life. soon it may become illegal to even have this kind of ministry. who knows how much longer we will have to do what we are doing today? unless we act now. we must be bold and allow ourselves. we must be bold and not allow ourselves to be forced out. we cannot lay down our religious freedom. i thought about what president obama said in his inaugural speech. he said you might not have voted for me but i will be your president. really, mr. president? you have allowed gays and lesbians into the white house. you sat down with them. you have had dinner with them. you heard their voices, but not once have you allowed those of us who walked out of the life of homosexuality to come into the oval office come to come into the white house and hear our stories. i challenge you today to allow us to come, and you listen to what we have to say. i pray that our courts will uphold traditional marriage so that god will continue to bless this great nation, the united states of america. thank you. mr. jackson: first of all i am honored to be here and thank you for the opportunity to take a stand with you, dr. scarborough, and with all of you, a stand for marriage as we point god ordained it. i stand here brokenhearted frankly, because i never thought i would see the day when in my beloved country the united states of america, merely holding to a biblical worldview would subject you to ridicule, to fines, the punishment, and yet that's where we have. and so we are here not only to reaffirm our commitment to marriage as a union between one man and one woman, we are also here to defend the religious liberty of christians and others all over this country who are simply trying to stand up for what we believe in. it's important to remember, christians didn't invent marriage as a response to the gay rights movement. this is what we've believed for the last 2000 years. i believe this long before there's any such thing i'd ever heard of any such thing as a gay-rights movement. so the idea that this is something that is motivated by bigotry, by hatred, or who we -- who were we hating before we believed marriage being between one man and one woman long before there was any such thing as a gay-rights movement? so it breaks my heart that our country is going in the direction it's going. it also breaks my heart that no matter how loving we try to be no matter how reasonable we try to be, no matter how much we expressed, as one woman did when a gay customer came in and demanded that she provide i think a floor arrangement for a gay wedding and she put her hands on his hands and said, i love you. you've been coming here for years, but i can't do that. she was still his friend. she still loved him, but he was asking her to break her commitment to our lord and savior jesus christ. people have to remember, christians have died for our faith in him. we have died for our commitment for the work of god. so the idea that those of us who believe are simply going to roll over because their social pressure, when we know we follow a long line of heroes of the faith, who surrendered everything, including the 158 children who just died not too long ago in kenya. kids really who would not renounce their faith in jesus christ under threat of beheading, under threat of murder. we are so not going to back off because people are upset with us. but we are not upset within. we love them. we pray for them. we will continue to fight the good fight. two with a quick points i want to make. one is i frankly, i am frustrated i this. this idea that homosexuality is like and at analogized to the black civil rights movement. look, first of all i can look around this room, some of you i know but i don't know other than those i know personally, i do note who in here is gay and who's not. you know who is black in here. [laughter] and when somebody walks up to a hotel and says, i need an overnight stay, if you look at the person because of the color of their skin to think no. when somebody goes out to get a drink of water and says you can't drink the water fountain you are the wrong color, that is very different than a person sang the want to come in my store and do this is? come on in. i don't have the whether you're a homosexual or heterosexual you want to buy dinner, you want me to make up floral arrangement, you'll need to take a kid, you will need to take photographs at a graduation, the family reunion? no problem, but don't ask you to do something that violates my faith. that's very different than what black people faced during the era of slavery and segregation. and this not like into interracial marriage. because there is no biblical basis for denying two people of the same race the right to marry or the right to be together. that was concocted to justify the subjugation of people on the basis of the color of the skin to try to kick them into place. but you won't find advocates pointed out to you a 2000 year history of prohibition against people of the same race getting the, different races getting married. but the analogy is sufficient and it's an insult to the illustrious history of the black civil rights movement to continue to use that analogy. but it's been very emotionally effective because people said i don't want to be like that, i don't want to be a discriminator. but these are two very different situations. the last thing i say is this. i think we are facing an undermining of the very foundation of this country because it's founded in truth. the founding fathers that we hold these truths to be self-evident. you know, when jesus thank pontius pilate and punches as well your kingdom jesus said i have come to bear witness to the truth, all who are of the truth hear my voice. pilot said, what is the truth? and i think that's the same question that has been asked now, what is the truth? so who says marriage is a union between one man and one woman? i think that we are sowing the seeds of moral destruction because if we are not a nation based upon truth, if there are no overriding moral truths and everything is up for grabs, the only thing that determines what's right individual is forced. but that's not the kind of nation we need to quickly we answer to a higher authority. we believed there were truths that nobody could change. we believe marriage is one of those truths that can't be change. people can talk about redefining it but i will always believe that this one definition of marriage and no matter what they label any other kind of union it will never be a marriage. made in the minds of those who do it will be but it will never be a valid this because marriage was ordained by god, and can only be one thing, a union between one man and one woman. truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne, yet that scaffold sways the future. can't stand within the shadows keep watch over us so do i do with what happened to us with a standard where taking but i think i can say for every one of us, we will give our lives standing for the truth. we will do it in love and do it in compassion, but we will be courageous about it and we will never back down. >> if we are going to bring the people back up here that spoke janet and rick and keith come if you come back up. if there's any questions. go ahead and -- >> e. w. jackson -- >> bishop e. w. jackson. mr. scarborough: my name for those watching his rick scarborough come on the front of vision america which we found vision america.org. >> if there's any questions, just two things i wanted to just point out because it's a question that comes up, but the first thing is not as much pleasure that comes up but as a policy matter, as a policy matter, same-sex marriage says that the highest level of government sends a message that children don't need moms and dads, the two women and two men are the equivalent of a mom and a day. it forever deprives children of ever having the opportunity of a mother and a father. had the recently wrote and i think the article was in federalist.org, that she was raised in a home with two moms. she's now married to a man come has children, and she says her heart ached when she was in the home with her moms come and she loved her moms, not speaking evil against her moms, but she said she was deprived of her father and she was never able to have that opportunity. another she is married and she sees her own husband interacting with the children she realizes exactly what she missed, and that's what janet was talking about. the second thing is what does this resistance look like? that's a common question. what does this line we will not cross me? and i think it will be manifested in multiple giveaways just like the civil rights movement was. and maybe a rosa parks refused to get off a bus or so this is unaccounted that a segregated or drinks after water fountain that is a white only water from the it manifests itself in different ways but let me give you an example. in 2004, when same-sex marriage came to massachusetts to catholic charities that event and administered for many decades, they were told you can no longer do that coming up to put children in homes with same-sex couples. when they said that violates our christian beliefs and doctrines of the church, they were said, they're told you then need to cease. to their credit they would not compromise. acs. i say then and now that number one, they should continue to pursue their call which is to place children in homes with moms and dads. whether the adoption or the force or the photographer or whoever it might be. number two, they should not voluntarily cease but they need to stand their ground. if a state chooses to use the police power of the state to come after them, then the state chooses but we will not voluntarily cease and we will not voluntarily compromise our calling and our commitment. that's what it means. this is a line that cannot and will not cross. so if there's any questions. >> state your name, please. >> isn't working? sarah jones. i have a bunch of questions. i will stick to one. name it, i keep hearing not just today that it's been increasingly popular talking point that a same-sex marriage is indeed legalized in june, that pastors will be forced to officiate same-sex marriages that there will be forbidden from preaching certain topics and the intervention of the however, not a single civil rights workstation has ever advocated this as a policy position. so where does this come from? what basis do you have for a? >> i can address the -- i think we of the same-sex marriage to a protected civil rights act, which accounted illegal with respect to race you were able to do legally with respect to same-sex unions. so let me extrapolate about. catholic churches that are catholics and baptist churches in our baptist but they can hire white only baptist or white only catholics. the church might have a restroom but it cannot say that this is a white only restaurant. i'm sorry, this is a white only drinking fountain. the one for people for colors down the road. bob jones university had a policy failure of abandoned by the time it was a -- they no longer a democrat and abandoning a policy. that banned interracial dating or just a lot of banned interracial dating that college campuses could not have such a policy. this is the worst act of 19 safety for the banned discrimination on the basis of race. the irs came to bob jones university and so change a policy. no, it's based on a biblical beliefs. they went to the united states supreme court and the lost that case and, therefore, they lost their tax-exempt status. a facility in new jersey, a methodist association lost its property tax exemption over this. this will have a wide reaching ramifications. whether and when it will reach the point of what a pastor can say, i don't know. we do know, however, that the bellwether of marriage for all of the world is the netherlands, norway, denmark and sweden. what happens from and that is that his family welcome break from europe and into united states. same sex unions for the game worldwide in the netherlands in 1988, 1989. first time in the world history. we do know that a pastor in the netherlands was jailed specifically for preaching on this issue. we know that pastors in europe have been fine and also targeted solely for preaching on the bible with respect to this issue. we know that, for example, in canada you can't broadcast certain things that are critical of homosexuality. we are not to that point, but it's not a wild hypothetical that this is, in fact, where we're going because where denmark was and norway and sweden, we now are. we are europe was in terms of the issues of targeting people that are faith-based, we now are. it's just a matter of time. >> i would like to add to that not only as a constitutional or but even more as a catholic clergyman. the hosana tabor case has protected somewhat some of the challenges we face of it in terms of hiring and firing in the catholic church. we sorted this commit against no one and would recognize that every single human person has fundamental human rights including those who are so professed as gay or lesbian. but there's going to be no changing what we have stood for 2000 years concerning marriage. right now we are do with struggles based on employing people who are in a purported marriage, men with men, women with women. and we cannot hire them because they are, in fact, violating the fundamental teaching of the catholic church. so far the precedence that come from that have given us some protection but there is no question that that is correct. the police power of the state will follow any rulings that says that we must give them the treatment legally to homosexual couples, or to lesbian couples as we do to marriage. and if we do not do so we will suffer the punitive implications. now, that is not a scare tactic. we are already witnessing it. right now comfortable and encouragement so i would his weddings in the catholic church. i do so as a civil authority registered in virginia but also as a cleric. in australia and in some other states, nations, the church is beginning to look twice, will they be able to do that any longer? we may not be able to do that any longer. we face a genuine specter of the state invading the church and telling us what we can and cannot preach, and what our sacraments are about. that is a threat to the fundamental religious freedom. >> we are about to lose our c-span audience. i would encourage everyone who's watching this broadcast, first place to thank you c-span. but never number two, go to defendmarriage.org and let us know what you think about this pledge. >> let me just come down to me avert some of the legal analysis. let me give some of the practical implications. when you make this a federal law, then the implications are profound. churches don't only preach. at bookstores, day care programs, they do a whole series of other things. now, if you start applying the law to these things that they do that you might not consider to be worshiped or strictly religious, then you intend on that churches ability to do what it does. and if the standard is, well you're a discriminator, then why wouldn't that be an application? maybe you should stop preaching that. maybe should start out by these things that are discriminatory that are upsetting people. and a moment there is some sort of court order, the court case in which an order is given, that certain kinds of even cannot engage in because it's discriminatory, when the past decide on upholding a court will decide on upholding a court order that requires me to do this or that because that's a violation of my religious liberty and my christian convictions, what happens when you violate a court order? contempt and ultimately imprisonment. so there's practical implications to this that don't require we go to a point where there's a lot of says a pastor may not preach this particular truth. >> other questions? yes-man. >> am jasmine. what would your response be to support of gay marriage or rights does -- that does not mean you automatically support gay marriage? >> i could begin. that is a logical statement. the reality is that is not the agenda of this particular movement. the agenda is not just to make me silent and have my own particular viewpoint and disgust -- and discuss it among people of my community. the agenda is to make me participate, affirm and promote it. for example, why was there such a big backlash against the founder of chick-fil-a. now what they want to do is force his business out. why was the ceo that founded this large software company, that was forced to resign as chairman of the board because he gave about a $1000 contribution or so to the proposition 8 campaign years before this. this agenda is a very intolerant agenda that is not content with the silence of those who object. this agenda is an agenda that that wants you to participate in affirm. this agenda doesn't say i understand the conviction that i've been a patron of yours for nine years and we are good friends then you have known that i am gay and i understand your heart. the agenda is that what you, not the forest down here who can do a better job because that is where the heart is, but i want you to participate in my ceremony. i want you to participate in my rally even though you don't discriminate against white people. they want you to participate in a public affirmation of it. that is the critical difference that crossing this line is different than roe versus wade in the sense you can now grow versus wade as horrible as it is to have genocide about massive nature. until now you have a then forced to participate and be a part of it in affirm. this is not a decision where we stand on the sidelines and criticize, complain about it. once it crosses the line it fundamentally changes the landscape and the culture and there is a coercive component of the state that targets anyone who objects and in answer to the previous question, there was an passed in fayetteville, arkansas that went back and people gathered enough signatures at the end of 2014. it was the first ordinance that had criminal penalties against churches that refused to affirm gender identity in same-sex, sexual orientation with people as secular positions that if you didn't resolve that within 30 days, it went to criminal prosecution. shocking. this is not hypothetical. this is a forced participation in something we cannot affirm. >> on the last point, that is the issue. by the way there is a distinction between recognizing equal rights and human rights for gay persons and then he moved on to train as marriage. that is the issue here to a classical issue, protestant evangelical or catholic. that is an oxymoron. there is no such thing. there can be life-long choices between gay couples to live together, but marriage is what it is and it cannot be changed. i will add one last thing. i am the guy appear with a collar on. i will say is a catholic areas of theology to a sacrament. for the sacrament of marriage, there needs to be a man and a woman who pledge their consent for life and are open to life. if in fact we are moving towards the redefinition of marriage and we put the police power of the state behind it, will there be compulsion for priests or deacons in the catholic church to preside over the services. our colleague from america united says there won't be. we know from the trans and history the police power follows the federal decisions. so, it is incredibly important that we recognize the implications and make a difference. in my church, we have a wonderful document from the 1990s on the pastoral care of homosexuals. it is respectful. but we will not and cannot recognize any such thing as marriage between anyone besides a man and a woman. if the state tries to compel us to do so, we must and we will resist. >> look. i don't think anyone at this podium wants to see people denied the right to work, the right to live, to have housing. we respect the dignity of every human being.

Related Keywords

Norway , Arkansas , United States , Canada , Australia , Texas , Florida , California , Virginia , Lynchburg , Washington , District Of Columbia , Pakistan , Reunion , Kenya , Iraq , New Jersey , Netherlands , Denmark , Saint Augustine , Israel , Massachusetts , Hollywood , Sweden , Americans , America , American , Keith Fournier , Abraham Lincoln , Franklin Graham , James Robinson , Roe V Wade , Martin Luther King , Oliver Wendell Holmes , Chuck Colson , Jesus Christ , James Dobson , Timothy George , Trick Scarborough , Christian Catholic , Adolf Hitler , Max Weber , Sarah Jones ,