The fight for Religious Freedom; Why Indiana Marriage is worth fighting for.

Birth Control Mandate Pennsylvania Religious Freedom  is under direct assault. There is no doubt about it. One doesn’t have to look very far in order to feel the jabs and pain of this new “America” we are living in. However, Americans face a decision. More specifically, Hoosiers face a decision.

  1. Accept this as the “new norm” or
  2. Decide that religious freedom is worth fighting for. 

If you fall in the category of the first choice, I respectfully ask that you exit this blog, as it is not for you. If you are of the 2nd category, I ask you to buckle up. I want to provide you with talking points and the resources you need to engage with the opposition and those who may simply not understand the importance or relationship between the attack on religious freedom and protecting marriage from being re-defined.

For those who stand for religious freedom, the truth is right at the tip of our fingers. But we must use it.  If you have the facts, you will be ready to engage. Below are some arguments the left uses to try to tear apart the family and attack religious freedom.

It’s important to note that in this fight to protect marriage and traditional values, we don’t hate anyone.  In fact quite the opposite is true.  This fight has nothing to do with preventing anyone from living together, holding property together, or prohibiting anything.  It has everything to do with protecting an institution that was ordained by God from the beginning of time, and protecting that freedom our forefathers fought to give… Religious Freedom.

Note: I will update this particular blog as I get new resources, so I would encourage you to bookmark it and return to it frequently.  Feel free to use any information as you engage.  This is just a sampling of the attack on our faith.  They are happening so quickly it is nearly impossible to keep up with them. 

Why is marriage worth fighting for?  Why can’t we just “get along” and love?

Everyone is free to live as they choose, but no one is entitled to redefine marriage for all of Indiana. Marriage is about bringing men and women together to father and mother any children their union produces. Whatever two men may be, they are not a mom. (Micah Clark, AFA Indiana)

Marriage is not a private matter.  It affects entire communities, states, and cultures. It is the foundation to a civil society.  Not only is marriage the foundation, but by allowing activist judges  to come in and re-define this institution, we strip our society of religious freedom.  We take away our right of conscience to live life according to Biblical principles.  By allowing the few activists to come in and strip the meaning of marriage, we take away the freedom of the pulpit and the freedom for our pastors to speak truth from the Word of God.

Indiana already had a law defining marriage between one man and one woman, why do we need to amend the Constitution?

Indiana is a stones throw away from a Supreme Court decision by an activist judge re-defining marriage in the State of Indiana.  It has already happened in Massachusetts and Iowa. New Jersey is the latest state  to have a judge force a new public policy on marriage upon schools, businesses, charities and churches.  Without the protection of a Constitutional amendment, traditional marriage just awaits a legal attack by activists who want to tear apart the foundation of our society.

Thirty states have defined marriage as between one man and one woman by amending their Constitution. Only five states have neither a statue nor a Constitutional provision prohibiting  same-sex marriage: Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island.  Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa legalized same-sex marriage as a result of high court decisions. New Hampshire and Vermont legalized same-sex marriage as a result of legislation. (  Same sex marriage is also legal in Washington D.C, where D.C. leaders refused to let the matter come before the people for a vote.

Why now? Don’t Hoosiers have other things to worry about besides marriage?

I’ve heard it said, “Why should the Indiana Legislature waste their time fighting for marriage, and why now?’   There has never been a better time for Indiana to send this issue to the voters. Americans have complained about the obtrusiveness of the Federal Government and its role in marriage.  For this reason alone, what a  prime reason to have this discussion in the state of Indiana.  Indiana has never had a more opportune time to do it. Fiscally, Indiana leads the nation. We have a governor who believes in protecting the borders, and knows the importance of states rights. The marriage amendment has already passed one general session.  It has to pass one more session as written before it can be sent to the voters. Now is the time. Hoosiers deserve to finally have the opportunity to vote.

Is the Indiana Marriage Protection Amendment Bad for Business? 

No, the vast majority of the states in the last 10 years with the highest job growth rates and personal income increases have Marriage Protection Amendments.

A new CNBC study of America’s Top States for Doing Business also revealed that nine of the top ten business friendly states have marriage protection amendments in their constitution. CNBC “scored all 50 states on 51 measures of competitiveness developed with input from business groups including the National Association of Manufacturers and the Council on Competitiveness.” The top ten states from 1-10 included Texas, Utah, Virginia, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming and Georgia. Wyoming was the only state without a Marriage Protection Amendment. Minnesota was ranked eleventh. (States that have marriage protection amendments)

The Indiana marriage amendment is identical to many other states and is simply a reiteration of existing law.

The Battle for Marriage, is the Battle for Freedom.

Faith 2 Action- Janet Porter “Criminalization of Christianity

Why would a TEA PARTY engage in this fight to protect marriage?

Small Government, Individual Liberty, Constitution, Fiscal Conservatism, Lower taxes, TEA Party principles…Why would a TEA Party engage in a fight to protect marriage?  We’ve been told to stay away from “divisive” issues.  We choose to be involved in fighting for marriage because of two words.  RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

With the latest decision coming from the Supreme Court, there have been many discussions on how these decisions will impact the church.  We have seen in the past five years, a shift in the American culture to ditch our traditional values and  appease about three percent of the population.  It has gone from a gentle nudge to an assault. Already in America, we have seen businesses sued for not  complying to the gay agenda. Florists, bakers, and photographers have recently faced lawsuits, church properties have been sued for not providing a space for a lesbian wedding. This is just the beginning.  We have been told that this decision will not impact the church or pastors preaching the word of God,  but as Thomas Peters from the National Organization for Marriage stated,

“Saying that you’re not going to be forcing pastors to do same-sex marriage implies that Christians only have their rights when they’re within their church walls,” Peters told CBN News. “Christians have the full First Amendment rights to stand for marriage in the public square, in their businesses.”

Since the passing of gay marriage in England, there has already been an attempt to sue the church with the demand to be married in the church.  Ironically, the law included protection for the church.  It didn’t matter. Barrie Drewitt-Barlow told the press that they plan to sue the church of England to get married there. (read more)

Our founders were for freedom and liberty.

Our founders drew a line between freedom and anarchy. They believed in morally ordered liberty defined by natural law and the Creator. Redefining marriage has no logical end or natural boundary. It will make government bigger impeding the freedom of speech, conscience and religion that our founders fought to protect.

Isn’t this the same as racial bans of the past prohibiting blacks and whites from marrying?

Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping men and women apart. The marriage amendment is about keeping men and women together in marriage. Children need a mom and a dad regardless of their race. Marriage can be color-blind, but not gender blind.

Freedom Facts and Myths:

Myth 1:  Same-sex marriage won’t affect my pastor or my church.

  • Fact: It already has. With anti-discrimination laws and the push for gay marriage, there is an attempt to try to force churches and Christian businesses to comply with the new laws.  ENDA was the beginning push for Christians to have to hire and participate in things that go against their conscious.In an interview with CBN’s David Brody, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican, joined in this chorus, warning that the push in favor of same-sex unions could, indeed, put First Amendment protections at risk.

    “If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step of where it gets enforced,” he said of hate speech regulations that are in place in other countries.  Think this is crazy talk? Think back to Mr Aake Green who was sentenced to 30 days in prison for inflammatory remarks about homosexuals.  (The Blaze) “It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage and that has been defined elsewhere as hate speech — as inconsistent with the enlightened view of government,” Cruz added.

  • The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association: The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association was founded in 1869 by a small band of Methodist clergymen on the New Jersey shore. It is a religious association that provides a venue for religious services, including Sunday services, Bible studies, camp meetings, revival gatherings, gospel music programs, religious educational seminars, and other religious events.As part of its outreach programs to the community, the Association makes regular use of its privately owned, open-air Boardwalk Pavilion overlooking the Atlantic Ocean. Each day throughout the summer, the Association hosts overtly and exclusively religious events in the Boardwalk Pavilion, events ranging from Bible studies to worship services and revival meetings. In March 2007, Harriet Bernstein asked the Association if she could use the Pavilion for a civil-union ceremony with her same-sex partner, Luisa Paster. In June 2007, the couple filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, alleging that the Association’s denial of their request amounted to unlawful discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. As is all too common, the Division agreed, concluding in October 2012 that the Association had violated the State’s nondiscrimination law, despite the fact that the Pavilion was a place of religious worship used by a religious organization.
  • A quick glance overseas gives us a preview of what will come if gay marriage passes. Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church. The country’s parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.
  • Gay Couple Sues to force Church Wedding: Millionaire gay couple the Drewitt-Barlows have confirmed they have launched a legal challenge to the right of churches to opt out of gay weddings.

Myth 2: Same-sex marriage won’t affect my business.

Redefining marriage forces everyone else, including churches schools and business owners, to affirm homosexual relationships, denying people their freedom of religion and opinion.

  • In fact:  It already has.
    • Gay bullying incident No. 1:  A bakery in Oregon called Sweet Cakes by Melissa recently shut its doors. Why? Some time back, two lesbians wanted to order a cake for their same-sex ceremony, but owners Aaron and Melissa Klein turned them down, explaining that same-sex “marriage” isn’t consistent with their faith as Christians. The women left, and next thing they knew Sweet Cakes was sued for discrimination. Read more at
    • Gay Bullying incident No.2: A florist in the state of Washington is being sued after turning down a long-time customer, a homosexual man, who wanted flowers for his same-sex “wedding.” The owner politely explained her refusal arose from her Christian faith. But she didn’t get the email about the unacceptability of resisting any homosexual request these days. The gay man sued her, and then the state attorney general piled on with another suit. Good news, though: she is counter-suing for religious discrimination.Read more at
    • Gay bullying incident No. 3: Then there’s the Christian photographer in New Mexico who was fined $7,000, a ruling recently upheld by the creatively fascist New Mexico Supreme Court. Elane Photography declined taking photos of a same-sex ceremony, citing Christian religious beliefs. The couple sued because there are apparently no other photographers in that state. Or maybe out of pure lesbian spite. Read more at
    • Gay bullying incident No. 4: In private companies, homosexual advocates are inventing new methods for discriminating using “non-discrimination” policies. Former NFL player Craig James was fired after one broadcast as a commentator for Fox Sports allegedly because of remarks he made while running for the U.S. Senate in Texas. (Ted Cruz won that race.) All candidates on a panel were quizzed about same-sex marriage, and Craig James spoke up for the biblical view of sexual morality. Fox dismissed him, but James is suing Fox Sports for religious discrimination. Read more at
    • Gay bullying incident No. 5: A bakery in the Denver area is being sued by a homosexual couple for not baking a cake for a same-sex ceremony. Possible jail time is involved.
    • Gay/trans bullying incident No. 6: A bar owner in Portland must pay $400,000 to 11 transvestites because of emotional distress following a phone call. He asked that they not return to his bar; customers were complaining and leaving.
    • Gay/trans bullying incident No. 7: Natalie Johnson of San Antonio was fired from Macy’s in 2011 after she refused to allow a teen male to enter the women’s dressing room. She cited religious faith and concern about the privacy of biological women. Both of these protected classes – sex and religion – are included in virtually every “non-discrimination” policy or law (including Macys’).
    • Gay bullying incident No. 8: Dr. Frank Turek, Christian author, speaker and radio host, is also a management consultant. He was fired from his consulting contract with Cisco Systems when a homosexual participant in his class took offense after reading one of Turek’s books supporting man/woman marriage. The participant complained to Cisco human resources, and Turek was gone.
    • Gay bullying incident No. 9: Jim and Beth Walder are Christians who own a bed and breakfast in Paxton, Ill. When they declined renting their facility to a homosexual couple for a civil union, they were sued.
    • Gay bullying incident No. 10: A Vermont bed and breakfast was sued by a same-sex couple based on the state’s “human rights” ordinance for not hosting their event. The Wildflower Inn eventually agreed to pay $30,000 in settlement fees.
    • Gay bullying incident No. 11: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey declined a lesbian couple’s request to use the venue for their civil union. They sued, won, and a higher New Jersey court upheld the judgment.
    • Gay bullying incident No. 12: A bed and breakfast in Hawaii turned down a lesbian couple’s reservation, and they sued. The lesbians won based on Hawaii’s housing “non-discrimination” law.There are numerous other victims as well: Julea Ward, Crystal Dixon, Angela McGaskill, Jennifer Keeton, and Kenneth Howell, all bullied by universities using misapplied discrimination policies; Viki Knox, Jerry Buell, David Parker, Daniel Glowacki, Dakota Ary, Carla Cruzan, victims of school-based intolerance of high moral values; firefighters in San Diego and police officers Columbia, S.C., directed by superiors to march in “gay” pride parades.And let’s not forget the over 2 million children in the Boy Scouts, at risk beginning Jan. 1 of corruption by proud homosexuals, all because of “non-discrimination.” Read more at
    • Gay bullying incident No 13: Just Cookies (Indiana): In 2012, owners of this cookie stand in the Indianapolis City Market refused to fill a special order by phone for “rainbow cookies” for a Purdue University-Indianapolis “gay” student group. Liberal activists charged “discrimination” under the city’s “sexual orientation” law and sought to pressure the market to drop its lease for Just Cookies. They failed, and the owners ultimately settled with the city (without paying damages) over violating the “gay”-affirming nondiscrimination code. Read more at
    • Gay bullying incident No 14: Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado): The Colorado attorney general has filed a formal complaint against this bakery for refusing – on religious grounds – to make a “gay” wedding cake.
    • Gay bullying incident No 15: Victoria’s Cake Cottage (Iowa): Owner Victoria Childress refuses to provide a wedding cake for a homosexual couple out of “convictions for their lifestyle.”
    • Gay bullying incident No 16: Arlene’s Flowers (Washington): As the liberal Think Progress reports: “Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman refused to provide the flowers for the wedding of a same-sex couple who had long frequented her shop because of her ‘relationship with Jesus Christ.’ She now faces two lawsuits:one from the couple, and one from the state attorney generalfor violating state law.”Read more at
    • Gay bullying incident No 17: Catholic Church shuts down adoption agencies in Massachusetts and Illinois due to pro-homosexual laws: In Illinois, a tragic casualty of state’s “civil union” law was the closure of the Catholic Church’s adoption program in Chicago. Catholics oppose adoption by homosexuals. This followed a similar story in Massachusetts, in which the Catholic Church shut down a successful adoption agency following the state supreme court’s imposition of “gay marriage” – rather than being forced to place children in homosexual-led households.
    • Gay bullying incident No 18: Matt Barber, fired by Allstate for opposing ‘gay’ agenda, now a pro-family leader: In 2005, Matt Barber was fired by Allstate Insurance Company for allegedly using a company laptop to write a column against homosexuality (which violated Allstate’s “diversity” standards). Barber sued Allstate and ultimately settled the case. Though not vengeful, Barber did get back at Allstate, in a way: He is now a popular conservative writer and is associate dean of the Liberty University School of Law, as well as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. Read more at
    • Gay bullying incident No 19Portland bar owner fined $400,000 for excluding transsexual men who were using the women’s restroom: Chris Penner, owner of the Twilight Room Annex bar in Portland, was recently fined $400,000 under the Oregon Equality Act for banning several “transgender” (biological) males from his establishment. The men – who would dress as the women they were pretending to be – were alienating other customers by using the women’s restroom. According to the state complaint against Penner, he left a message with one of the “transgenders” saying that: “People think that a) We’re a tranny bar or b) We’re a gay bar. We are neither. People are not coming because they just don’t want to be here on a Friday night now.” The Seattle Times reports that eleven people – who apparently call themselves the “T-girls” – “will get the money, with awards ranging from $20,00 to 50,000.”
    • Thinking of getting a degree in Christian Counseling? Think again.  It will soon be illegal to counsel someone who is gay and tell them there is a better way.  Read more here: 

What is at stake:

Your freedom to believe in Biblical principles and speak out in the public square. Your Freedom of Religion.  Your parental rights to raise your children with Biblical Principles.  “If homosexual activist get everything they want, it will be nothing less than the Criminalization of Christianity ~ Bob Knight”

Strong family=More Freedom

Moving marriage away from the ideal of a man and a woman will only serve to grow the reach of government. One need not look far to see that wherever marriage loses meaning, where more children are raised without a mother or a father, the role of government expands dramatically.

Marriage between a man and a woman is society’s best guarantee of a small government that stays out of family life. Marriage has a public purpose that government will step in to fill at huge cost to taxpayers if marriage loses meaning by being rewritten into whatever any group wants.

Where there are strong families the freedom of the individual expands and the reach of the State contracts. Where family life weakens and fails, government advances, intrudes and ultimately compels.”  President Ronald Reagan, December 2, 1982

When marriage breaks down, government moves in to fill the void. Preserving natural marriage actually reduces the role government plays in filling the role that a mother and father uniquely provide.



Printable version of this blog available upon request. : Documented examples of the Criminalization of Christianity.


Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Specify Facebook App ID and Secret in Super Socializer > Social Login section in admin panel for Facebook Login to work

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

13 thoughts on “The fight for Religious Freedom; Why Indiana Marriage is worth fighting for.

  1. I’m wondering about your examples of gay “bullying”. So would it be ok in those instances if a mixed race couple came in and the business owners denied them services based on the fact that the couple aren’t of the same race? Many people used to think it was immoral for couples of a different race to get married and indeed it was illegal for them to do so.

    If you are serving the general public when can you say no and when do you think it is ok to discriminate based on religious beliefs? Do your religious beliefs supersede the law stating that certain classes of people are protected from discrimination? Would it be ok if an atheist baker refused to make a cake for a communion or other religious event?

  2. I assume that your regurgitation of the incorrect information above was largely due to your inability to understand the facts and not due to your internal animus toward the gay population. I’m sure you are aware, but just as a reminder, none of the cases against the businesses mentioned above have anything to with having or not having a gay marriage ban. They are related to anti-discrimination ordinances, laws and statutes so you might want to pivot your bigotry toward those. I realize it’s difficult to understand where you should start to obliterate a group of tax paying citizens and their civil rights but, just to help you out, marriage is just not going to impact those situations. Sorry.