There's a case in Michigan that just had closing arguments on Friday; the judge will rule within a couple of weeks on whether or not Michigan will become the next state to fall to this madness.
In an article from February 24, this caught my eye
"Nothing says family like a marriage license," DeBoer told reporters before entering the courthouse hand-in-hand with Rowse, her partner of eight years.
I've worked in public schools for a number of years and I've seen many (politically correct) books say that this is NOT true. We've been pushing the idea that "families come in all forms" - if a child is being raised by a single mom, that's a family. If a child is being raised by a single dad, that's a family. If a child is being raised by his or her grandparents, that's a family. If a man and a woman (or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or a person and their cat) are living together without children, that's a family. Mom and boyfriend/Dad and girlfriend...family. You get my drift.
What a surprise to find out that it's a "marriage license" that says "family!"
What about faith?
The point of this madness is not to give gay folks the "right to marry" - it's not only to normalize that which has never been "normal." It is to GLORIFY that lifestyle choice, and to force EVERYBODY to accept it, applaud it, normalize it.
remember the Borg? "You will be assimilated."
People of faith who do not agree that "government sanctioned gay relationships" are wrong? Via Tammy Bruce
Having been a liberal “community organizer” in my past, I immediately recognized the strategy being employed. This is an effort to condition the public into automatically equating faith with bigotry.
To make faith in the public square illegal and dangerous, you need legal cases and publicity. Voila, lawsuits against small business resting on the notion that acting on genuinely held faith is bigotry per se.
Under these rules, freedom of conscience is squashed under the jackboot of liberals, all in the Orwellian name of “equality and fairness.” Here we are dealing with not just forcing someone to do something for you, but forcing them in the process to violate a sacrament of their faith as well.
If we are able to coerce someone, via the threat of lawsuit and personal destruction, to provide a service, how is that not slavery? If we insist that you must violate your faith specifically in that slavish action, how is that not abject tyranny?
And now, we wait.