On Phil Robertson’s Suspension: So It Begins

My initial response to Phil Robertson’s suspension by A&E is best expressed by Theoden, at the beginning of the battle of Helm’s Deep, in The Two Towers, Lord of the Rings Trilogy. They, too, were fighting to defend their families against powerful aggressors.

The “it” that I sense beginning (accelerating, actually) now is not some new culture war. It is the culturally- and legally-mandated suppression of Christian religious liberty, with people losing jobs and being faced with fines and jail time for their beliefs.

It’s not that Robertson’s suspension is the turning point, as that moment in The Two Towers was. It’s not as if all was quiet and expectant earlier this afternoon, and now A&E has sounded the first bugle for the first assault across the bridge. My sense of “and so it begins” has been building over the past few years. It’s been growing at a faster pace recently, as the government has (for example) now made it a matter of legal requirement that bakers bake cakes for gay “wedding” celebrations.

There may never be one clearly identifiable turning point in our defense of biblical truth against the pressure exerted by advocates of unbridled sexual expression. More likely it will remain more a matter of challenges increasing over time. Still this is a significant symbolic moment; a very sobering moment. The battle has just intensified.

It’s now upon us and the whole church to respond with spiritual power through prayer, with the truth of God’s holiness and righteousness, and with the grace of knowing that the only thing we have going for us is the same mercy in Christ we want the rest of the world to know.

We could get angry, and in the right context it’s fully justified. It’s also very spiritually dangerous, though, for anger often goes wrong and loses track of what’s truly just.

We could get vengeful, but “vengeance is mine, says the Lord.”

We could consider ourselves wounded and injured over it, but God has a better word than that for the persecuted: “Consider it all joy when you encounter various trials.” Indeed, a truly thoughtful and deep expression of joy could be our most effective means of evangelism now.

None of us should expect things to get easier–not unless the Lord intervenes with a sweeping move of the Spirit in revival. We ought instead to expect things to become more challenging. Darkness may well increase around us in ways we had not anticipated. The light can shine all the brighter, if we will let it.

Let’s all be in prayer, okay?

This blog post, unlike most others on this site, is not for the purpose of debate among people of different beliefs. Its actual purpose should be plain enough for all to see. All comments will be moderated, to ensure that the post doesn’t get hijacked to other purposes.

Related: Moving Beyond Anger To Grief

Comments 40
  1. Sean

    “It is the culturally- and legally-mandated suppression of Christian religious liberty”

    WTF are you talking about?

    There is no suppression of his religious liberty. He can say whatever he wants.

    But there are consequences. Gays are people too, regardless of what the Bible says. So when you insult a group of people, you face the consequences.

    If he went out and dropped the n-word, the same thing would happen.

    Geez, you religious nuts are tooooooooo much.

  2. Tom Gilson

    Sean, you have a strange conception of what does or does not count as “suppression.”

    (Please read the discussion policies as you continue to interact here.)

  3. A

    Very well put! You are right – we shouldn’t expect things to get easier. They never will while we’re on earth. But we certainly can pray, and find joy, and let our lights shine all the brighter for it!

  4. Jim

    I have nothing against Phil Robertson. He has risen to his current stature because of an attractive love and stand for Jesus. My problem with most evangelicals, which I am one, is the battles we choose. Mr. Robertson chose to make an unnecessary statement in regards to gay men. I happen to wholeheartedly agree with him on his preference of female sexual relations but would never say this in a public forum. Are gays sinners? Yes. Are straights sinners? yes. Instead of picking fights and name calling, believers should be all about reflecting the incredibly bright light of Jesus Christ and speaking in a manner that is honoring of Him. Our mission is not to clean up dirty, lost men and women, it is to introduce them to the ONE who will make them truly clean.

  5. Sault

    He did something that the (private) company that he works for didn’t think was appropriate, so they have put him on a form of administrative leave and suspended his pay.

    Sounds like a reasonable reaction. I mean, hey, if you have lots of black customers and one of your employees goes on the record saying how at least some black people were happy under Jim Crow laws (which was another one of the things that this guy said), then you might want to do something publicly to assure your customers that this employee doesn’t represent your company.

    What it does not sound like is

    “the culturally- and legally-mandated suppression of Christian religious liberty, with people losing jobs and being faced with fines and jail time for their beliefs.”

    or

    “How long before Christians begin getting thrown into Prison”

    What nonsense. He’ll be back “on” the show in a few weeks, tops. They need to put on a show to demonstrate in some way to their customers that they don’t share his backwater views. Once they’re confident that their customers understand this, then we can all go back to letting the subtext be the subtext, to borrow another blog’s phrase.

  6. w00k33

    Agreed– maybe we should try rejoicing!

    “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5:11-12)

    “Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.” (Acts 5:41)

  7. Arlene

    Wow. To Tom: Mr. Robertson was asked to interview with GQ. The reporter is known to have anti-Christian beliefs. He questioned Robertson. Robertson plainly replied with the answer as to what he thought were sins against the Lord, thereby quoting Corinthians. He also used his own testimony in how he came to know Christ.

    To Jim: In the context of the questions being asked by GQ, these were the responses given by Robertson. I would question the magazine and their objectives. This is not the first time a reporter has taken their own goals to make a Christian look ignorant, or grim. Something you may want to look into. Also Robertson is a man of blunt words, not a pastor, or scholarly man or a journalist, a well read man. Just a plain man who liked hunting. How many Robertson’s are out there who love the Lord but are put on the spot and may speak little, or not articulate so well? I can tell you–many soldiers WWII vets quiet but loving.

    To Sault: I’m not sure if you know how our rights as Christians are being threatened and minimalized. If I will not got to a same sex marriage to take photographs of a wedding it will be construed as “hate” or if I do not bake a cake for you–I have committed a “hate crime.” Many have lost businesses & paid thousands in fines as they were sued. Redefining marriage has involved threatening the heterosexual marriage & family in ways not told about in the mainstream media–maybe you can check on how these are coming about.

    I thank you. I count it a blessing to be persecuted for the Lord, He gave so much for a wretch like me. I can never do enough. Jesus is my everything.
    God bless.

  8. G. Rodrigues

    @Jim:

    I happen to wholeheartedly agree with him on his preference of female sexual relations but would never say this in a public forum.

    So stating a *preference* is offensive? Blacklisted? Wow. Just wow.

  9. Crude

    What I find really telling with regards to Robertson is that the HRC and GLAAD criticisms of what he said were untrue.

    Seriously, read them, then read his GQ comments.

    First, they say that what he said ‘flies in the face of what true christians believe’. Regarding same-sex sexual activity as a sin as something ‘true christians’ don’t believe is laughable. Even if you believe it’s questionable – and that’s a hell of an argument to make – to argue it’s that clear cut is ridiculous.

    They accused him of ‘pushing vile and extreme stereotypes’ about gays and lesbians. Great – try to find what the vile and extreme stereotype is in what he said. That they’re sinners according to Christian teaching?

    ‘Not consistent with the values of our faith communities and scientific findings’? Maybe HRC’s faith communities, which may well be a joke. But scientific findings? Science doesn’t deal with “sin”.

    He didn’t say that being gay is a choice someone makes, so that’s out.

    These LGBT advocacy groups are eggshell levels of fragile, to the point of insanity. At least they’re finally being regarded as such.

  10. Crude

    They accused him of ‘pushing vile and extreme stereotypes’ about gays and lesbians. Great – try to find what the vile and extreme stereotype is in what he said. That they’re sinners according to Christian teaching?

    To qualify this – they are not sinners according to Christian teaching, in and of themselves. The acts are, which is what Robertson zeroed in on.

  11. Billy Squibs

    At least they’re finally being regarded as such.

    Serious question. Are they?

    I would think that the general reaction to this story is: “Some religious guy said some bad stuff about gays. He got punished. Good”

  12. Pingback: Duck Dynasty : The Line Must be Drawn Here | mē genoito

  13. Sault

    @Arlene

    I’m not sure if you know how our rights as Christians are being threatened and minimalized.

    I see Evangelicals fanning the flames of anti-gay hatred in Uganda. People are going to be imprisoned and killed because of some Christians’ hatred and intolerance… why should I have sympathy for you over a cake?

    Redefining marriage has involved threatening the heterosexual marriage & family in ways not told about in the mainstream media–maybe you can check on how these are coming about.

    Let’s see… over a decade of legalized marriage in some countries internationally, 17 states, the District of Columbia, and a number of tribal jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage, and yet society hasn’t crumbled.

    I try to keep my beliefs based off of the evidence, and I *still* haven’t seen any that same-sex marriage is bad or causing harm to anyone.

    Got any?

  14. Tom Gilson

    You really want to run the experiment don’t you? Or rather, you think that 10 or 15 years is sufficient to determine its outcome.

    In any normal social experimentation setting, this would break every rule of ethics; and any sane sociologist/psychologist would tell you that you don’t have your answer yet.

    We do know, however, that societies flourish where strong, stable families flourish. We have LOTS of long-term evidence on that.

    You’ve got less than half a generation. Pffft. It’s nothing.

  15. Sault

    @G-Rod

    “So stating a *preference* is offensive? Blacklisted? Wow. Just wow.”

    It’s easy to dismiss the racist ramblings of the old guy next store. I mean hey, he’s a quite old crochety fellow, and everyone knows that when some people get set in their ways they’re hard to change, right?

    Well, what if a member of Chelsea FC started complaining about Mexican immigrants taking other peoples’ jobs? It’s a little different, isn’t it?

    We hold public personae to a different standard. This is a fact of life.

  16. SteveK

    I try to keep my beliefs based off of the evidence, and I *still* haven’t seen any that same-sex marriage is bad or causing harm to anyone.

    I know you know this, but I’ll say it anyway….”bad” and “harmful” aren’t scientific terms, so gather all the evidence you want and none of it will tell you if some cause/effect is bad or harmful. The evidence either supports or doesn’t support those terms as they are objectively defined.

  17. Sault

    @Tom

    Because I haven’t stopped by for a while? Either way, thank you for allowing me to participate. I’m only weighing in on this thread, then I’ll be back some other time.

    I don’t think that the conservative Christian community has any legitimacy to complain about supposed social experiments when their biggest one, abstinence-only sex education, turned out to be such a drastic failure.

    Anyways, I wasn’t trying to hijack the thread with that question…. The point is that a private company has disciplined one of its employees for airing publicly sentiments which offend some of its customers.

    It is possible that if he had just stopped at talking about his preference in body parts it might not have been a big deal, but he did go on to slander several other world religions, compared homosexuals to adulterers and zoophiliacs, and claimed that some black people were happy under segregation. I mean, c’mon, it’s kinda hard to roll with that!

    That’s why I don’t see this as a “so it begins” moment. If his faith helped him turn his life around, I say that’s a good thing… but your faith isn’t a “Get out of Jail Free” card. Just because you have faith doesn’t mean that you can say whatever you want and avoid the consequences of it.

    Your favorite author, your favorite actor, your favorite artist, the owner of the store you buy your groceries at, the president of the non-profit that you donate money to… you hold these people to different standards than you hold the proverbial racist ol’ coot next door to. People have a right to their opinion, but not the right to avoid the consequences of airing that opinion publicly.

  18. Aleister

    Jesus predicted that just before His return as Judge, there will be a strange, dangerous fad – a spontaneous global steamroller notable for its speed, violence, and impudent in-your-face openness. In Luke 17 He called this worldwide craze the repeat of the “days of Lot” (see Genesis 19). By fulfilling this worldwide mania that’s secretly coordinated by unseen spirit beings, gays are really hurrying up Christ’s return and making the Bible even more believable!
    They’ve actually invented strange architecture: closets opening not on to bedrooms but on to Main Streets where kids can see naked men having sex in “Madam” Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco Brothel District. We wonder how soon S.F.’s underground saint – San Andreas – will get a 10-point jolt out of what goes on over his head (see the dire prediction about cities in Revelation 16:19, and Google “Obama Supports Public Depravity”).
    What’s really scary is the “reprobate mind” phrase in Romans 1:28. A person can sear his conscience so much that God finally turns him over to S, the universal evil leader whose unseen agents can give a “possessed” person super-human strength that many cops with tasers have trouble subduing!
    Remember, gays don’t have to stay bound to their slavery. Their emancipation is found in a 5-letter name starting with J – no, not James or Julia. As soon as they can find out the all-powerful J name, gays will really start living! (Google “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up,” “USA – from Puritans to Impure-itans,” and “The Background Obama Can’t Cover Up.”)
    Was Jesus silent about gays? Google ” ‘Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality.’ When gays have birthdays….”

  19. Keith

    Tom, since you specifically mentioned the cake, I’m guessing it’s OT.

    I’m curious what you and other believers would argue is a better line to draw than the one drawn in that case.

    The ruling was based on the argument a seller cannot discriminate based on the customer’s intended (legal) use of their product.

    Obviously, nobody wants a free-for-all, where any company can refuse to sell their products to anyone of whom they disapprove.

    So, what’s the line we should have drawn that would have allowed the baker to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, but not at the same time opened the door for the baker to refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple? Or a Christian couple?

  20. Tom Gilson

    I think one fair place to draw the line would be at what the seller is commanded to create and to express.

    Should a t-shirt maker have the right to refuse to sell shirts to a group that wanted to wear them to a neo-Nazi rally? I’m no legal expert, but if the courts said he couldn’t discriminate on that basis, I wouldn’t quibble with it. But what if they wanted the shirts printed to read, “The Holocaust was the best thing ever!”? In that case, the t-shirt maker would be producing and distributing a message that he disagrees with profoundly, and he ought to be able to say no to that.

    Likewise, no one should be required to do the creative production work for a product whose message explicitly violates his or her conscience and/or religious convictions.

    The difference, I think (as far as I understand the case), is that this was not about who the customer was, or what the intended use was. It was about the message the baker was being asked to participate in communicating.

  21. Tom Gilson

    Surely somewhere there’s a gay-owned printshop whose owners would object to printing flyers proclaiming that homosexuality is an abomination! In fact I think an interesting test case could be run: ask them to design and print a flyer with the message, “Homosexuals who run print shops are harming all of society!”

    Should the law force them to do that?

    So you see, clearly there’s a line somewhere. It’s just a matter of determining where it is; and I think it’s somewhere in this neighborhood: the design and/or creative production of a message (or product that directly supports or affirms a message) that violates one’s conscience and/or religious convictions.

  22. keith

    Tom @22:

    The line you propose is exactly the line the court drew (according to a Denver Post editorial).

    As the judge noted, Phillips’ attorney raised the specter of a black baker being required “to make a cake bearing a white supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation” and an Islamic baker being required “to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church.”

    But as [the judge] responded, the problem with that line of argument is that the gay couple’s order never got to the stage of discussing what would be on the cake. At that point a baker’s “free speech right to refuse” might kick in, depending on the nature of the request.

    In other words, a commodity product must be sold to everyone equally, and an explicit message may or may not be rejected under free speech law.

    I am sympathetic to the baker’s argument: if the baker’s cake appears at a wedding, there is an implicit, limited endorsement of the wedding. Regardless, the ruling against him was correct; it’s chaos if a business can refuse to sell commodity products to anyone of whom the owner disapproves.

    A harder question is a wedding photographer.

    As reported in the New York Times, a wedding photographer was willing to do gay portraiture but not photograph gay weddings, arguing she “she did not want to tell the stories of same-sex weddings”.

    In other words, she sells commodity work to anyone, but wedding photography is a “creative production” (in your words), and deserves more protection.

    It’s a direct conflict — equal treatment under the law vs. free speech rights — and probably headed for the Supreme Court.

    I’d prefer she win: to the extent possible, people shouldn’t be forced to violate their conscience in their daily life.

  23. keith

    Tom @23: It’s a hard question.

    IANAL, but from what I’ve read, it comes down to two questions:

    First, is the activity/expression entitled to First Amendment protections? (Wedding cakes are not, wedding cakes with personalized messages on them probably are.)

    Second, does opening a business to the public mean First Amendment protections are trumped (or at least limited), by the requirement to treat all customers equally?

    I believe the first question is settled (bakers must sell commodity cakes to all comers). The second question is still in motion.

    Interesting… I think we’re in complete agreement here. 🙂

  24. Crude

    Billy,

    I would think that the general reaction to this story is: “Some religious guy said some bad stuff about gays. He got punished. Good”

    Not among as many people as you would think. Hence the very sizable backlash at this point.

    Because even people who are sympathetic to LGBT issues generally are not sympathetic to this kind of behavior. This hand was poorly played.

    Keith,

    Second, does opening a business to the public mean First Amendment protections are trumped (or at least limited), by the requirement to treat all customers equally?

    No, it’s a requirement to treat some customers specially. In this case, a requirement to give your blessing to acts – not individuals, but acts – that you may disapprove of.

    Unless black bakers are now forced to make cakes for the Ku Klux Klan’s latest membership drive, it’s special treatment.

  25. Keith

    Crude @27:

    I believe you’re factually wrong: if a KKK member walks into an African-American owned bakery, points to a cake on the shelf, and says “sell me that cake, we’re doing a bake sale”, the baker has no right to refuse that sale.

    If you can point me to any reference that permits refusal of that sale, I’d be grateful.

  26. BillB

    It’s awfully hard to take Christian views on homosexuality seriously, given comparative divorce rates.

    As you know, Jesus said nary a word on homosexuality but prohibited divorce unambiguously (Matt 19, Mark 10).

    Even if I grant that both are sinful, where’s the sense of proportion? Do you really think gay marriage is a stronger threat to “the family” than divorce? Wouldn’t this be a wonderful opportunity to apply Matt 7:1-5?

  27. Tom Gilson

    BillB, there’s also good research showing that where Christianity is practiced in the home in a series of operationally definable ways, the divorce rate is much lower.

    Jesus never said anything about hijacking intellectual property, either. He did preach that marriage is between a man and a woman. Principles are principles, after all. You can’t expect every anachronistic issue to show up in Jesus’ mouth, but the principles are clear.

    Where’s the sense of proportionality?

    Where?

    WHERE???

    WHERE??????

    It’s in the thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of divorce-prevention marriage retreats conferences churches hold each year.

    It’s in the thousands upon thousands of pastoral counseling sessions held in churches each month, if not every week.

    It’s in the thousands of marriage classes that churches hold. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a couple thousand you could attend tomorrow, if you surveyed churches across the country—or if not tomorrow, then early in the new year after Christmas celebrations are over.

    (My wife and I have been through two such multi-week courses in our own church in the past three months. Our church held a marriage retreat in the middle of November, which unfortunately we were unable to attend because we were at a different one with other friends.)

    It’s in the huge marriage/family Christian publishing industry.

    It’s in couples encouraging one another, time and time and time and time again.

    Sure, it’s not in the media, but the only reason we’re responding to homosexuality in and among the media is because that’s where the conversation is happening.

    But wait! It is in the media: or did you think that Focus on the Family and FamilyLife never talk about strengthening marriages, but only about fighting gays???????

    Proportionality?

    It’s there. It’s really there.

    It’s everywhere you look, if you take the time to look for it.

  28. Tom Gilson

    Consider:

    http://www.wwme.org/view-all-weekends.html
    http://unitedmarriage.publishpath.com/Default.aspx?shortcut=register
    http://theartofmarriage.com/locations/ (Enter next year’s dates and search)
    Bear in mind that the above are low-overhead conferences, and many more will be added in the next year.

    Also:
    http://shop.familylife.com/events_1.aspx?categoryid=97
    http://www.winshape.org/programs/marriage

    That’s just for starters, and it’s just retreats that have dates and locations easy to find on the web.

    Now, try to find on Google a Christian conference that’s devoted to discussion of homosexuality from the perspective of not supporting it. Let me know if you come up with one.

  29. SteveK

    It’s awfully hard to take Christian views on homosexuality seriously, given comparative divorce rates.

    Jeepers, that’s twisted. The Christian view of both subjects is consistently taught to all who will listen. That Christian’s fail to live up to those teachings isn’t a reason not to take them seriously. Some people are hypocrites, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that the Christian view isn’t.

    Do you find it difficult to take the view “love your neighbor as yourself” seriously given that so many fail to live up to that view?

  30. Keith

    Tom @32:

    A Christian conference that’s devoted to discussion of homosexuality from the perspective of not supporting it? Challenge accepted.

    Awareness & Training Seminar on How to Handle Homosexuality Issues, March 5-8, 2009.

    Snark aside:

    BillB’s point has weight.

    It’s true Christians use far more “loaded” language when talking about divorce than when talking about homosexuality, and Christians don’t treat them proportionately. Yes, pastors talk about divorce, but divorced people are welcome in the church; when was the last time a divorced person was told to leave the church and return only when re-married to their original spouse?

    But I also agree with Tom: churches do strongly support the institution of family/marriage with money, time and expertise, and that should be acknowledged.

  31. SteveK

    Keith,

    …and Christians don’t treat them proportionately.

    Other than treat them proportionately as a sin that is to be avoided, are we required to treat them the same? Some sins are worse than others.

    Maybe we are focusing a lot on the lesser sin, and if that is the case, the only reason that is being done is because public culture reminds us daily that we should view it not as a lesser sin, but as a virtue to behold. I rarely see anything in public culture reminding us that we should view divorce as a virtue.

  32. BillB

    @Tom

    BillB, there’s also good research showing that where Christianity is practiced in the home in a series of operationally definable ways, the divorce rate is much lower.

    According to that link, a 38% divorce rate in these families. Still a massively greater influence on these families than the proportion of homosexuals likely to marry — more or less an order of magnitude greater.

    It certainly looks like you hold the two groups to hugely different standards: for them, we’ll use the force of law to prevent them from marrying at all. For us, we hold classes and conferences and ask you nicely to avoid divorces!

    But wait! It is in the media: or did you think that Focus on the Family and FamilyLife never talk about strengthening marriages, but only about fighting gays???????

    Once again this is only talk, a far cry from the legal coercion applied to homosexuals. Where is the public outcry to make divorce illegal (except in cases of marital unfaithfulness) — or even just more difficult?

    @SteveK

    Some people are hypocrites, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that the Christian view isn’t.

    Except from a legal standpoint, the Christian view certainly is hypocritical. No-fault divorce has been legal in parts of the USA only since 1969, and the church now continues happily to follow the broader legal opinions of the country. Again, where is the outrcy to outlaw, or at least to restrict divorce legally?

    From an outsider’s perspective, it looks pretty obvious that there is no call for legal divorce restrictions because this is a problem that affects us; i.e. a significant minority of Christians. Homosexuality, on the other hand, affects a much smaller minority; one that is more easily swept under the carpet inside the church. Hence, it becomes far easier to call for across-the-board, black and white legal restrictions to be created or maintained.

    Once again, IMO a wonderful opportunity to apply Matt 7!

  33. Tom Gilson

    BillB, the “force of law” is actually being brought against Christians and other conservatives by homosexual activists. We didn’t initiate a thing; we haven’t coerced anyone. We’re standing on the side of continuing what’s been practiced for centuries. Gay activists have mounted a sustained assault on that practice.

    Don’t allow yourself to get mixed up as to where the aggression and initiative are being taken here. We’re not the Luftwaffe over London, we’re the RAF.

    As for its being a double standard, no, it’s strategy. The best defense against divorce is to support couples. The best defense against the further erosion of a healthy marriage culture, through gay “marriage,” is to continue to make the case that gay “marriage” is a contradiction in terms.

  34. BillB

    We’re standing on the side of continuing what’s been practiced for centuries

    Against gay marriage, yes. Against divorce, clearly not.

    As for its being a double standard, no, it’s strategy. The best defense against divorce is to support couples. The best defense against the further erosion of a healthy marriage culture, through gay “marriage,” is to continue to make the case that gay “marriage” is a contradiction in terms.

    You may believe that, but you’re not going to convince the broader public. Not now and even less so in the future.

    As long as it remains “legal prohibition for you, support groups for us”, even though “our” problem affects ten times more families, it’s going to look an awful lot like a double standard.

  35. Keith

    Exactly as the “force of law” was brought against Christians and other conservatives allowing miscegenation. Playing defense on tradition doesn’t make you right.

    Has anyone else read the Utah ruling?

    Judge Shelby spoke harshly: “As discussed below, the State of Utah has not demonstrated a rational, much less a compelling, reason why the Plaintiffs should be denied their right to marry”, and “[The contentions made in Loving v. Virginia] are almost identical to the assertions made by the State of Utah in support of Utah’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. For the reasons discussed above, the court finds these arguments as unpersuasive as the Supreme Court found them fifty years ago.”

  36. larry

    In the law we have an expression for those situations where someone is Inidicted and then there are no consequences to him. The technical term for that, used often by defense attorneys, is a “win.”

Comments close automatically after 120 days. Comment numbering may be incorrect due to a temporary bug.