Where are sanctuary cities for marriage?

Christians are now going to jail if they don't support homosexuality as marriage. We knew this was coming. The only question was when.

So if sanctuary cities are permissible for defying standing U.S. immigration law, why can't we have sanctuary cities that honor only authentic marriage?

As my friend and pro-family colleague, Dr. Michael Brown, wrote recently: "When Gavin Newsom refused to submit to the law in 2004, he was a hero. When Kim Davis refuses to submit to the law, she is a bigot and a monster." Gavin Newsom, former San Francisco mayor, illegally began issuing same-sex "marriage" licenses in 2004.

San Francisco is also a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants, some of whom are criminals, and one young woman paid with her life. Kim Davis' punishment over the "law" seems arbitrary and hypocritical.

"Do your job!" cried the sin supporters inside the Rowan County clerk's office. And as Kim Davis was taken into custody and hauled off to jail, "LGBT" activists chanted, "Love won!"

No, actually, tyranny and mythology are winning and American constitutional principles and the rule of law are losing, as well as reasonable accommodation for Christian beliefs.

If Kim Davis were a Muslim, none of this would be happening. You know it, and I know it.

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning has a record of siding against families and in favor of rainbow radicals. In another highly charged case in 2003, Bunning ordered Boyd County High School in Kentucky to permit a "gay-straight alliance" (a homosexual club) and implement pro-homosexual activities under purview of the ACLU.

The community disagreed. A rally against the school club in 2002 drew more than 2,000 people. Judicial bias is alive and well in America, and Judge David Bunning is Exhibit A.

But back to Kim Davis. Not only was it unnecessary to punish her for standing on religious principle, since many other options were available to the plaintiffs, but that isn't even the foundational issue. There is no valid law in Kentucky allowing pretend same-sex "marriages." The Kentucky law has not changed, nor has applicable U.S. law.

As Mark Levin said on his show on Sept. 3, "The court is nullifying the rule of law, not this lady."

Our lawmakers keep rolling over and pretending that courts create law, but they don't. This marriage fight all began in a Massachusetts court in 2003 and, since then, cowardly politicians keep nodding and assenting to something that does not exist.

What should happen after a court provides an opinion is that any pertinent lawmaking body follows up by changing the law. That has not happened in Kentucky.

One reason for instant accommodation is the vicious homosexual lobby. Almost every elected official rolls over and gives these destructive extremists what they want, failing to hold the supporters of same-sex "marriage" accountable when they bypass the law.

Take, for instance, Eric Holder and the attorneys general of numerous states, including Jack Conway, attorney general of Kentucky, who refused to defend the law of that state after 75 percent of voters amended the constitution in favor of man/woman marriage.

So what do we do now? Here's my suggestion. Since we are beginning to see violations of constitutional rights based on objections to homosexuality as marriage, I believe there's a clear precedent for establishing sanctuary cities for authentic, lawful, man/woman marriage.

Think about how great life would be in those cities. After all, unlike the defiance of immigration law, these cities would be upholding the actual law under our actual Constitution, not the imaginary one in the mind of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

So, why not cities that uphold a standing, just law? Family life would be much healthier and safer in these cities. Keep out the vile "gay-pride" parades as well as harassment lawsuits against bakers and florists. And how about no pro-homosexual lessons in school, falsely implying that some people are born homosexual, or born to mutilate themselves by sex-change surgery? Also, no ban on counseling for teens who have same-sex attractions.

And the local media, if they tried to distort the truth in the current popular fashion, would find local advertisers withdraw. "Tell the truth or forget our support" would be a refreshing new response by the unshackled corporate community.

Businesses in such cities would not be pressured to contribute to homosexual causes, or if they were, they could respond, "Sorry – please go away!" And contractors outside the city would have to adhere to the marriage sanctuary's policies: "Honor marriage and family, or you are not eligible to compete here. Take your business elsewhere."

Of course, such cities would not be without challenges. They would be targets for dirty tricks, phony "hate crimes," special sections on "gay apartheid" by the New York Times and so on. The formulaic fables and drama, based on no facts but lots of screeching, can be composed now in advance.

We are not unaware of the schemes of Satan, nor of Saul Alinsky adherents.

It will take a courageous city council to take this step, yet the trend would be contagious as people share their positive experiences with friends and relatives across the country.

Of course, to reinforce citizens' rights in marriage sanctuaries, Americans must be vigilant to never allow passage of H.R. 3185 and S. 1858, the "Equality Act" in Congress, where "LGBT" behaviors would become federal civil rights. This fascist legislation endorsing immorality and denying liberty under RFRA laws will hopefully never come to a vote.

But imagine the freedom to live the truth. No one in such cities would be arrested or sued or fired or demoted over marriage, or have a TV show canceled, or be kicked out of grad school, or lose a consulting contract, or be mocked, or given a failing grade for supporting only man/woman marriage, or be prevented from preaching the whole Gospel.

Marriage sanctuary cities are a wild proposal, but why not? It's not just a good idea – it's the law.