Schlafly: 'Gay marriage' advocates want to 'wipe out' Christianity

By Paul Bremmer

Have you noticed that it's Christian bakers, florists, photographers and pizza makers who are in targeted for declining to promote same-sex ceremonies, even though other religions reject "gay marriage," too?

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly has noticed, and she sees the double standard as part of a desire by "gay marriage" advocates to destroy Christianity.

"They want to wipe out the Christian religion," Schlafly said in an interview Monday on CRN's "Talkback with Chuck Wilder."

She noted most other religions do not recognize same-sex marriage.

"I assume there are some Muslim bakers and photographers and other people who have been harassed, but they're not being attacked and they're not being criticized," she argued.

The Supreme Court is currently weighing arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, which questions whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Many observers believe the court will strike down all remaining state bans.

WND has compiled a "Big List of Christian Coercion" highlighting cases in which florists, bakers and others have faced discrimination, formal censure or legal jeopardy because they chose to abide by their faith.

Schlafly – author of "Who Killed the American Family?" – noted that throughout human history, marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. She said even the ancient Greeks, who tolerated "gay" couples, did not allow them to marry. It was not until the dawn of the 21st century that "gay marriage" as a legal institution began to pick up steam in various countries around the world.

Given the long history of traditional heterosexual marriage, Schlafly finds it appalling that unelected jurists would have the final say in defining the institution.

"Now we're gonna let the judges change that?" she asked. "What kind of a country do we live in? I mean, it's really just an outrage."

Schlafly is unmoved by the fact that some three dozen states have already legalized same-sex marriage. In most of those states, she noted, it was imposed through a judge's decision, not a vote by the people of the state. The former lawyer argues the Constitution was not intended to let judges dictate major policy decisions.

"There are some people who think the judges should run everything," Schlafly said. "But that's not what that means when we said the Supreme Court could interpret the law. They can't write the law, they can just enforce the law the way it was written."

Schlafly thought it was inappropriate for a federal judge in 2010 to strike down California's Proposition 8, a ballot initiative in which the people of California voted to define marriage as only one man and one woman. She said Americans should not accept federal court rulings as the final law of the land if the rulings are legally or morally wrong.

She pointed to Abraham Lincoln, who robustly criticized the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision while his sparring partner, Stephen Douglas, was content to let the court rule that blacks could never be American citizens.

Kids out of control, parents out of control, and people want to know "Who Killed the American Family?" Answers are here, in Phyllis Schlafly's new analysis of the nation.

"There's this thing about the American people that they think if the Supreme Court speaks, that we all have to bow down and accept it," Schlafly observed. "We shouldn’t accept it when it's wrong."

She noted the Founding Fathers "thought the Supreme Court would be the weakest of the branches of government because it doesn't have any money of its own and it doesn't have any guns!"

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Schlafly added, once called the states "laboratories" of democracy – enclaves where citizens could, in a democratic manner, experiment with new social and economic policies without affecting the rest of the country. But she thinks federal judges have hijacked the concept by using the states as their own laboratories to experiment with potential federal policies.

Schlafly wishes to see change originate from the people not the judges.

"They've had a lot of changes in many of the states, but most of them were not done by the people," she said. "Most of them were done by the judges. And we don't want to have rule by judges."

Schlafly is described by the website U.S. History as a "career woman" who came out of nowhere to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment proposed during the 1970s.

"She heckled feminists by opening her speaking engagements with quips like, 'I'd like to thank my husband for letting me be here tonight,'" U.S. History says. And she warned of unwanted side effects such as women being drafted, a loss of protective laws against sexual assault and the banishment of single-sex restrooms by future courts.