Here We Stand: My Response

Export to PDF | Export to DOC

I’m nobody special, no books with my name on the spine line your shelves. I’ve no swanky office in a well-funded think tank, in fact my desk is a re-painted dumpster-salvaged kitchen table. In spite of that disadvantage, here is my response to the Here We Stand statement.

Contra ERLC, outrage is a singularly appropriate response. Rather than hide behind a gospel of nicenessssss, we should be talking about how to use our outrage. We’re mad as hell, so what do we do now? As the popular meme reminds us, overturning tables and using whips have their precedent. 

The statement is weak and vulnerable to just criticism as Dr. Robert Gagnon has shown, Here highlighted by my brother in the faith, Tim Bayly. Unfortunately, the ERLC has chosen to effectively deny the possibility of iron sharpening iron and responded like a mean girl. 

Dr. Gagnon is right about some of the weaknesses in the statement, but I might go even further and say the court decision is not merely in error (more weaksauce, anyone?) as the statement has it, but brazenly flouts not only our constitution but the practice of every culture known to history and anthropology. The Imperial Court, formerly known as SCOTUS, has imposed what no culture has ever encountenanced. In addition to the weaknesses there is what I thought the glaring omission of any call to civil disobedience. Cardinal George may have believed his successor will die in jail, it doesn’t look like any of the men of ERLC will join him there if this is their response. 

Most egregiously, though, the statement neglects to mention the consequences of this decision other than those pertaining to religious liberty. My own first response was not to worry about religious liberty (it’s dying anyway) but to sorrow for the women and children who will be exploited, discarded and murdered as a result. “Marriage Equality” is already leading to calls for family equality before the ink is dry on the decision. We’ve already endured the popular press drooling over Elton John’s and David Furnish’s purchased children with Newspeak birth certificates listing the male Furnish as “mother”. After all, if two men can be married, why can’t one of them be the mother?

The abusive practice of third party reproduction with exploitation of women as breeders and product/children destroyed if they don’t meet “quality standards” will increase and become normalized. The practice treats women’s bodies as egg farms in the life and health threatening practice of egg “donation”. Next, it treats women as chattel slaves, often incarcerating them in houses with dormitory style bedrooms that make the average coed’s domicile look like the Ritz Carlton. And the children? Contracts will be written requiring the children be destroyed in utero for any number of causes. And if the contracting “parent” changes their mind? Well, good luck enforcing that contract in the courts. But it won’t stop there. Does anyone doubt that “notorious RBG”, who finds a right to government funded abortion hidden in those mysterious penumbras and emanations will also find a right to government funded third party reproduction?

No, Dr. Moore, outrage is the correct response, the righteous response. Why? Because sooner than any of us can imagine, we will have come full circle.

Welcome back, Dred Scott.