Just a few days after BLM and Antifa set fire to a church outside the White House in the summer of 2020, the mayor of Washington D.C., Muriel Bowser, issued an emergency order. This wasn&#8217;t an order about restoring law and order to the streets of the nation&#8217;s capital, or punishing the vandals who had just destroyed property and assaulted Secret Service agents, or anything like that. Instead, Bowser made the decision to hire an elite team of eight artists — yes, eight artists — to meet up at around 3:30 a.m. in the morning. These artists&#8217; mission, if they chose to accept it, was to paint the words &#8220;BLACK LIVES MATTER&#8221; on two blocks of road, in giant fifty-foot-tall letters, just a few blocks from the White House. This street painting would be referred to as a &#8220;mural,&#8221; to give it some sense of grandeur, even though it&#8217;s really graffiti. Nobody knows why it required eight artists to paint three words in Times New Roman font. Maybe they needed one to do the painting and the other seven for spell check. It’s not clear.
But it was clearly a very deliberate decision to have this graffiti painted in secrecy, under the cover of darkness, like they were planning the Bin Laden raid. Apparently the reasoning was that white supremacists would be less likely to jump out of the bushes on 16th street and mess up the paint at 3:00 a.m., because as we all know, at that hour the white supremacists are too busy hunting for the cast of &#8220;Empire&#8221; in Chicago. So the BLM graffiti could be painted in peace. And then, by morning, everyone would awaken to see &#8220;BLACK LIVES MATTER&#8221; on the ground, and racism would be defeated. All of the klan members in Washington D.C. would see the words on the street and say to each other, “Geez, you know what, black lives really do matter.” And then they would throw off their pointy hat hats and go get jobs at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Of course, the actual plan was a lot more modest than that. The real goal was simply to annoy Donald Trump and impress &#8220;The Resistance,&#8221; which applauded any effort — no matter how petty — to advance the BLM scam. To that end, Muriel Bowser renamed the area with the alleged &#8220;mural&#8221; as &#8220;Black Lives Matter Plaza.&#8221; And then she <a href="https://x.com/MurielBowser/status/1269090846160412672" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted this message</a> on social media: &#8220;We turned on the night light for him so he dreams about #BlackLivesMatter Plaza.&#8221; Yes, according to Muriel Bowser, the plan was to have Donald Trump &#8220;dream about&#8221; some words they painted on the ground. And people loved it. This is the kind of tweet that, on Old Twitter, got tens of thousands of &#8220;likes&#8221; and non-stop praise in the replies. Anyone who disagreed was banned for hate speech.
Given that recent history, it&#8217;s actually kind of astonishing to see how Muriel Bowser and Democrat activists have reacted to Republicans&#8217; latest effort to get rid of BLM Plaza and the street graffiti. Congressman Andrew Clyde of Georgia recently introduced legislation that would strip D.C. of most of its federal funding unless they eliminate BLM plaza, rename it &#8220;Liberty Plaza,&#8221; and get rid of the graffiti. And instead of fighting back in any way, Democrats are rolling over. Muriel Bowser has already announced that the BLM writing is going to be removed from the street. Apparently the current plan is to replace it with artwork commemorating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, which is coming up next summer. And as various local news outlets are reporting, it&#8217;s not just the mayor who&#8217;s fine with this. One of the artists involved in creating the so-called &#8220;mural&#8221; doesn&#8217;t really seem to care either. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 BLM MURAL REMOVAL IS TOTALLY FINE" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/o_jpuoDnDg8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
At this point, you have to go out of your way to find anyone in D.C. who cares about this graffiti being wiped away. The people who created it are now distancing themselves from the whole idea. So are a lot of local activists. We went from Mitt Romney saying &#8220;Black Lives Matter&#8221; as he marches along with Left-wing activists, to watching Left-wing activists pretty much disavow the whole thing. And it only took a few years.
To be fair, I did find at least one woman who seemed upset that this beautiful mural is being erased. Here&#8217;s what she told a local news station. As you&#8217;ll see, this woman is wearing a shirt about D.C. statehood, and she begins by talking about DEI, so it&#8217;s safe to say that the BLM mural isn&#8217;t exactly her primary focus. But she eventually gets around to implying that erasing the big yellow words on the street is a really bad idea. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 SOME SAY BLM MURAL REMOVAL TRAGIC" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fskega-onIo?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It&#8217;d be interesting to get this woman&#8217;s take on all the statues that Democrats have torn down over the years. That&#8217;s the kind of history she wants to see &#8220;erased.&#8221; But some words painted on a street five years ago — a monument to the total disaster of the BLM movement — is something that we supposedly need to preserve at all costs.
Of course, most people in the Democrat Party don&#8217;t think that way. They&#8217;re trying to distance themselves from this &#8220;mural&#8221; as quickly as they can. BLM — which was once a core, unifying pillar of the Democrat Party — has suddenly become a major political liability for Democrats. They can&#8217;t run away from it fast enough. This is progress, of course, in one sense. It&#8217;s a sign that Democrats are abandoning a movement that caused more than a billion dollars in property damage, resulted in multiple murders, suspended the right of self-defense in parts of the country, and kickstarted a nationwide de-policing effort that made this country far more dangerous.
At the same time, Democrats are not abandoning BLM because they&#8217;ve adopted a new, coherent ideology to replace it. They&#8217;re not committing themselves to a more responsible platform or anything like that. Instead, they’re flailing around in a state of total disarray, without any guiding principles whatsoever. They have no leadership and no direction of any kind. We are witnessing anarchy in the Democrat Party, after years of lockstep, disciplined messaging. And it&#8217;s not just the downfall of BLM Plaza that illustrates the chaos that&#8217;s unfolding.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1550-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Last night the Left-wing outlet Axios <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/03/06/democrats-disrupt-trump-speech-reaction" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that, in the wake of Donald Trump&#8217;s address to Congress, Democrats in Washington are now fighting among themselves about how terribly they came across. Apparently Democrats&#8217; leadership in Congress didn&#8217;t want any kind of props to be used, nor did they call for any kind of interruptions or heckling. And of course, all throughout Trump&#8217;s speech, Democrats were waving their little paddles around, making noise, turning their backs to Trump, rushing out of the chamber, and so on. So there was a complete breakdown of leadership, by all accounts. Axios quotes several Democrat congressmen, including Jared Golden and Tom Suozzi, as saying the outbursts were a major mistake. One Democrat put it this way: &#8220;Not standing for Trump would have been a fine strategy, but you need to separate him from the kid with cancer.&#8221;
But that’s the way it played out, because the Democrats are totally beholden to the most radical elements of their party. This is &#8220;ideological capture,&#8221; and the consequences are a lot more far-reaching than Democrats might like to admit. The issue for them is not simply that voters find their party to be completely unappealing, even though that&#8217;s obviously a serious problem. The bigger issue for Democrats is that voters are now going back and re-assessing how Democrats got to this point. Voters are thinking about everything else Democrats have said over the past decade or so. They&#8217;re wondering what other scams the party has been running.
That might explain why, according to a <a href="https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_uHE5Cxl.pdf#page36" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recent poll</a> from The Economist and YouGov, only 48% of Americans support the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. 38% of Americans oppose it, and the rest are unsure. To restate: Less than half of adult Americans want same-sex marriage to be recognized nationwide. Among political &#8220;moderates,&#8221; support for the nationwide legalization of gay marriage sits at just 51%. Among conservatives, it&#8217;s down to 20%. This is from a poll that was conducted just a few days ago, in the first days of March. Even among self-described liberals, support for gay marriage isn&#8217;t unanimous. It sits at around 84% in that demographic.
Just three years ago, YouGov <a href="https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/43775-51-34-americans-would-back-congress-passing-law-le" target="_blank" rel="noopener">measured</a> much stronger support for gay marriage, when people were asked the same question. A majority of Americans backed it. In other words, things are now so bad that Democrats are even losing ground on an issue that they thought was settled. They viewed gay marriage as a stepping stone to gender ideology, without realizing that the insanity of gender ideology would eventually make people take a closer look at gay marriage. And that was a major tactical error, because when it comes to the culture war, no argument is ever really settled. People on our side have said for years that the marriage debate is over. We lost. There’s nothing we can do. But that’s not true. It’s never over. After all, the “traditional” definition of marriage — which is to say the actual definition — was settled for thousands of years. Until it wasn’t.
The reality is that, just as quickly as America was overtaken by the moral panic of BLM and the emotional blackmail of trans activists, we can return to some semblance of sanity. It doesn&#8217;t take much. What conservatives need to do, as quickly as possible, is to capitalize on Democrats&#8217; weakness and start passing laws that reverse the derangement that&#8217;s been so dominant for so long. If conservatives do that, they might be able to drag more concessions out of Democrats than we ever thought possible. After all, no one thought they&#8217;d cave on the BLM movement as quickly as they have. But they did. And it stands to reason that they can be beaten on gender insanity and voter ID and open borders and all of their other &#8220;must-have agenda items&#8221; just as thoroughly. All Republicans have to do now is take advantage of their position of power and apply pressure, just like the congressman from Georgia did. In response, Democrats might howl and stomp their feet and wave paddles around. But in the end, they will lose.

House Minority Leader McCarthy Hosts Back The Blue Bike Tour

Sanity Is Making A Comeback

Black Lives Matter

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Matt Walsh

Muriel Bowser

Opinion

President Trump

Same-Sex Marriage

Washington D.C.

White House

Woke Culture

People are widely praising President Jimmy Carter’s Christian faith after his passing, a reaction that reveals a telling double standard in how elites treat different expressions of Christianity.
For example, a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2025/01/01/jimmy-carter-evangelical-baptist-faith/">Washington Post</a> writer declared, “For Jimmy Carter, faith was inseparable from politics and life.” The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/5060618-jimmy-carter-christian-example/">wrote</a>, &#8220;Jimmy Carter was the Christian most politicians pretend to be.” And The New York Times<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/12/30/us/carter-on-death.html"> profiled</a> how Carter’s faith defined his activities and outlook in public life.
By all accounts, Carter’s Christianity was a particularly pietistic expression of Mainline Protestantism. This is a faith whose doctrinal core has been hollowed out for decades by theological liberalism. It’s a modernized Christianity that sheds the most controversial and supposedly outmoded elements of biblical doctrine to placate the spirit of the age.
For example, Carter is on record celebrating same-sex marriage and defending abortion. He publicly opposed Southern Baptist conservatives as they sought to return the denomination to a more biblically faithful position, ultimately departing it altogether.
Carter’s faith resonates with liberal ideals — service, humility, and social justice. His Christianity embodied what one of my old professors called “BOMFOG” (Brotherhood of Man and Fatherhood of God). This version of Christianity wins praise. 
Of course, service, humility, seeking justice, and loving your neighbor are beautiful and vital parts of Christianity. But Christianity also addresses sin, human nature, family structure, the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, sexual morality, repentance, and absolute truth. These are the harder truths of the faith that don’t play well in progressive circles.
When conservative Christians act on their faith, public opinion and media framing shift. Suddenly, Christianity becomes a problem. When conservative Christians act in line with their beliefs on issues like life, family, or religious liberty, they are met with criticism and labeled intolerant or regressive. It’s a threat to democracy and an illiberal force in society. 
Just look at the past eight years. Evangelicals have been relentlessly vilified in the media, even by fellow Christians at elite publications. Yes, there’s some nutty behavior out there among evangelicals. But on the whole, if you take your Christian faith seriously and it becomes a threat to the cultural comfort zones of progressivism, you are persona non grata. Consider the ominous media analysis of Sen. JD Vance’s supposed “post-liberal” Catholicism. The tone makes it seem like his faith is as sinister as Darth Vader’s theme song.
The difference? Carter’s faith comforted the cultural Left. It posed no threat to the dominant liberal order.
To be fair, his faith motivated many good works for which I will not criticize him. But Carter’s Christianity ultimately allowed him to serve as a chaplain to progressive America. It represents the convergence of religious sentimentality with progressive moral values. In effect, Carter’s faith symbolizes the one form of church-state establishment that liberalism will tolerate: a Christianity stripped of its harder truths, its calls to repentance, and its moral clarity.
Biblical, orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, confronts the liberal order with truths it refuses to hear. And when those truths are voiced, orthodox faith is sidelined or castigated as intolerant. Liberalism will not accept a Christianity that proclaims Jesus Christ as the only way to God, that defends unborn human beings discarded as medical waste, or that challenges the decadent sexual deviancy now treated as routine.
The lesson? Our culture tolerates a Christian faith that aligns with its values but resists a Christian faith that challenges it. This dynamic reveals something fundamental about true Christianity: it is to do both, comfort and confront.
If your Christianity is celebrated in the highest echelons of culture, maybe that’s a sign something is amiss. That doesn’t necessarily mean compromise is present, but it should at least raise questions. On the other hand, being so hard-edged and “prophetic” that you’re unbearable to be around is also a problem. Authentic faith should embody love and truth (1 Corinthians 13:6), reasonableness (Philippians 4:5), and sober-mindedness (1 Peter 5:8).
Carter’s life invites us to examine how faith is understood and celebrated in public life. The irony is clear: society embraces a faith that serves its agenda while rejecting a faith that stands apart from it. True Christianity, however, is neither a servant of the age nor its unrelenting critic. Instead, it provides both the comfort of grace and the challenge of repentance, which our culture desperately needs.
So, let’s not selectively celebrate faith only when it fits a preferred narrative. If faith matters, it matters in full, whether it aligns with our politics or not. That’s the beauty of Christianity. It’s the one worldview that provides both comfort and confrontation, truth and grace, and it’s what we need in this moment of cultural upheaval. 
Andrew T. Walker is Associate Professor of Christian Ethics and Public Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Managing Editor of WORLD Opinions. He is a Fellow at The Ethics and Public Policy Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Former President Jimmy Carter Teaches Sunday School

Jimmy Carter And America’s Double Standard For Celebrating Christianity

Abortion

Christianity

Jimmy Carter

Southern Baptists

The legal team for former <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/kentucky" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kentucky</a> clerk Kim Davis say they are fighting back following a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kentucky-clerk-who-refused-to-issue-licenses-following-scotus-gay-marriage-ruling-must-pay-over-260k-in-fees-judge-rules" target="_blank" rel="noopener">controversial ruling</a> against Davis, and even suggested the case could end up undoing the U.S. Supreme Court&#8217;s landmark decision on gay marriage in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/it-would-be-more-than-a-little-chaotic-ted-cruz-explains-why-supreme-court-is-unlikely-to-overturn-gay-marriage-decision" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Obergefell v. Hodges</a>.
Davis in 2015 refused to hand out a marriage license to David Ermold and David Moore after the pair walked into the Rowan County Courthouse alongside journalists and protesters seeking the license. Last week, Davis was ordered to pay $260,104 in attorneys fees to the couple&#8217;s lawyers, on top of the $100,000 she was already ordered to pay to the couple directly.
&#8220;The plaintiffs in this case are part of a larger agenda that are intent on punishing people of faith who hold the values that marriage is the union of a man and a woman,&#8221; Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/kim-davis-case-overturn-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling-legal-counsel?dicbo=v2-DlzGkzQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> Fox News. The organization is representing David.
&#8220;While it appears at this stage that they have been able to succeed, this case now is set up that it could possibly be the undoing of the very case that started this whole matter and that&#8217;s Obergefell v. Hodges from 2015 that has no basis in the Constitution,&#8221; Staver added.
The legal team will argue in an appeal that Davis &#8220;could not bring herself to violate her deeply held Christian beliefs,&#8221; and was entitled to a religious accommodation under the First Amendment, Fox noted.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
&#8220;Clerks in Kentucky (were) &#8230; provided conscience opt-outs for hunting and fishing licenses,&#8221; Staver said. &#8220;Kim Davis wanted a conscience opt-out for the same-sex marriage licenses.&#8221;
At the time, then-Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat, doled out an exemption for his attorney general, who said he could not defend the state&#8217;s marriage amendment. Davis was not awarded one, however, and spent days in jail.
Currently, clerks in the state are allowed to opt-op from such participation.
Despite the legal team&#8217;s outlook, some conservatives do not believe Obergefell v. Hodges will be overturned. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R), for example, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/it-would-be-more-than-a-little-chaotic-ted-cruz-explains-why-supreme-court-is-unlikely-to-overturn-gay-marriage-decision" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in 2022 that the 2015 decision was “clearly wrong,” but he does not believe the high court has any “appetite” to review the case. He added that it would be “chaotic” to disrupt such unions that occurred in accordance with the law.
“Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation’s history,” Cruz said at the time. “Marriage was always an issue that was left to the states. We saw states before Obergefell, some states were moving to allow gay marriage, and other states were moving to allow civil partnerships. There were different standards that the states were adopting.”
&#8220;In [Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision,] what the Supreme Court said is Roe is different because it’s the only one of the cases that involve the taking of a human life and that’s qualitatively different” than Obergefell, Cruz said.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kentucky-clerk-who-refused-to-issue-licenses-following-scotus-gay-marriage-ruling-must-pay-over-260k-in-fees-judge-rules" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kentucky Clerk Who Refused To Issue Licenses Following SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling Must Pay Over $260K In Fees, Judge Rules</a>

owan County Clerk of Courts Kim Davis waves to a crowd of her supporters at a rally in front of the Carter County Detention Center on September 8, 2015 in Grayson, Kentucky.

Kim Davis Fighting Back After Ordered To Pay $100,000 To Gay Couple, Could End Up At SCOTUS, Legal Team Says

Kim Davis Is fighting Back After Being Ordered To Pay $100,000 To Gay Couple, Could End Up At SCOTUS, Legal Team Says

Courts

Kentucky

LGBTQ

U.S.

Kim Davis, the former <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/kentucky" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kentucky</a> clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses after the Supreme Court&#8217;s landmark decision in 2015 on gay marriage, must pay $260,104 in fees to attorneys who represented a couple, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
Despite Davis’ attorneys arguing that the fee request by the same-sex couple’s lawyers was excessive, U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning said that the former clerk’s lawyers exaggerated and “belie[d] logic,” the Lexington Herald-Leader <a href="https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/kentucky/article283727788.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. The $260,104 in attorneys fees is in addition to $100,000 in damages a jury ordered Davis to pay David Ermold and David Moore, a couple who won a lawsuit against her last September. Davis’ attorneys are expected to appeal Bunning’s ruling.
“They sought to vindicate their fundamental right to marry and obtain marriage licenses, and they did so,” Bunning said of the couple.
The ruling is the latest in a more than eight-year legal struggle for Davis, an evangelical Christian who was the county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, in 2015, shortly after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed a right to marry under the U.S. Constitution. Davis made headlines after the decision when Ermold and Moore walked into the Rowan County Courthouse followed by journalists and protesters, seeking to obtain a marriage license.
To avoid issuing any marriage licenses to gay couples, which Davis said was against her religious convictions, she refused to hand out marriage licenses to any couple. After entering the courthouse in September of 2015, Ermold asked Davis “under whose authority” she refused to issue a marriage license, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/same-sex-marriage-kentucky-kim-davis.html?smid=pl-share" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according</a> to The New York Times.
“Under God’s authority,” she responded.
Davis was then jailed for five days for contempt of court, and the gay couple’s marriage license was issued by a deputy clerk after Davis’ name was removed from the form while she was behind bars. The former county clerk was also sued by another gay couple whose license she denied, but a separate jury didn’t award them any damages, WKYT <a href="https://www.wkyt.com/2024/01/02/judge-kim-davis-owes-250k-attorneys-fees/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1703684399691000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0m2xSiGF1JK_f4B43pJkSz">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Davis lost her re-election bid in 2018 to Democrat Elwood Caudill Jr. by eight percentage points, Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-rules-former-clerk-refused-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses-pay-260000-legal-expenses" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. Ermold, one of the men to whom Davis refused to issue a marriage license, also ran in the primary against Caudill Jr. in 2018, but came up short. After his primary loss, Ermold said he would prefer Davis win the election over Caudill Jr.
&#8220;I just want him to lose. I would rather Kim Davis win,&#8221; Ermold said. &#8220;At least Kim Davis has the integrity to stand up for what she believes in. Elwood Caudill is a liar.&#8221;

Kim Davis

Kentucky Clerk Who Refused To Issue Licenses Following SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling Must Pay Over $260K In Fees, Judge Rules

Judge

Supreme Court

Pope Francis clarified this week that Catholic priests can bless individuals in same-sex couples but cautioned that such a blessing does not sanction the union and cannot resemble a marriage ceremony.
Couples in &#8220;irregular situations,&#8221; including same-sex relationships, can receive blessings that do not &#8220;sanction or legitimize&#8221; their unions, the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which exists to defend Catholic doctrine, clarified in a <a href="https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2023/12/18/0901/01963.html#en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">document</a> published Monday.
The document, called &#8220;Fiducia Supplicans,&#8221; was signed by Pope Francis as well as the Dicastery’s new prefect, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández.
Priests can give people in same-sex couples a &#8220;spontaneous blessing,&#8221; but the blessing cannot be a &#8220;liturgical&#8221; act or resemble the sacrament of marriage, the document says.
A blessing on people in same-sex couples cannot be given in connection with a civil union, and no &#8220;clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding&#8221; can be included in order &#8220;to avoid any form of confusion or scandal,&#8221; the document says.
&#8220;Rites and prayers that could create confusion between what constitutes marriage — which is the &#8216;exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the generation of children&#8217; — and what contradicts it are inadmissible,&#8221; the document warns.
Instead, the Vatican said that a priest can give a blessing in other contexts, such as a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a group prayer, or during a pilgrimage.
In the blessing, the priest can pray for the individuals to have &#8220;peace, health, a spirit of patience, dialogue, and mutual assistance — but also God’s light and strength to be able to fulfill his will completely,&#8221; the document states.
&#8220;There is no intention to legitimize anything, but rather to open one’s life to God, to ask for his help to live better, and also to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the values of the Gospel may be lived with greater faithfulness,&#8221; the document adds.
The Catholic Church does not sanction same-sex marriage, and that official position remains unchanged, the document emphasized.
&#8220;The Church’s doctrine on this point remains firm,&#8221; the document says.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
&#8220;At the same time, one should not prevent or prohibit the Church’s closeness to people in every situation in which they might seek God’s help through a simple blessing,&#8221; the document adds.
In recent years, there has been much speculation around whether Pope Francis would change the Catholic Church’s approach to people in same-sex relationships.
On Monday, media outlets and commentators <a href="https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/1736752055362936938" target="_blank" rel="noopener">presented</a> the Vatican&#8217;s document as a major shift for the Catholic Church.
However, the Catholic Church <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/does-doctrine-change" target="_blank" rel="noopener">never changes</a> its official doctrine, although it often clarifies particular points.

Vatican Hosts World Meeting Of Families

Pope Says Blessings For Individuals In Same-Sex Relationships Cannot Resemble Marriage

Catholic

Catholic Church

Catholicism

Pope Francis

Religion

The Vatican

Vatican

World

A Christian social worker in the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/united-kingdom">U.K.</a> is taking legal action after his job offer was rescinded for his Christian views of sexuality and marriage.
Felix Ngole was offered his “dream job” as a mental health support worker at Touchstone Support Leeds, a charity <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/services/service-directory/touchstone/N10499434">partnered</a> with the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS), but weeks later, the company <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12278659/Christian-job-offer-rescinded-company-learns-victory-free-speech-case.html">rescinded</a> the offer when it found out about his Christian beliefs and past victory in a religious liberty case.
Several weeks after receiving his acceptance letter, he received an email from Touchstone Deputy CEO Kathryn Hart, saying he was not fit for the position because the company had “identified some significant areas and concerns” that did not “align with Touchstone Leeds’ ethos and values.” 
“In particular, we can see that you have very strong views against homosexuality and same-sex marriage, which completely go against the views of Touchstone, an organisation committed to actively promoting and supporting LGBTQ+ rights,” Hart continued.
She said that she would reconsider if he would embrace Touchstone’s values, including “the promotion of homosexual rights.”
The father of three was then invited to a meeting with Hart and the company’s operations director, Dave Pickard, who questioned him intensely about his beliefs.
Ngole, who fled persecution in Cameroon, compared the questioning to interrogations he experienced in his home country. “They called it a discussion but it felt like I was being interrogated back in Cameroon,” he said. “Every question had an LGBT slant. … I think they were concerned that employing me could risk their Stonewall ranking.”
&#8220;What I cannot do, and you cannot reasonably expect me to do without yourselves being discriminatory, is make my participation in the &#8216;promotion of homosexual rights&#8217; a condition of my employment,&#8221; Ngole responded in the meeting, assuring them he would not discriminate against anyone. 
A week after the meeting, he received an email from the company officially rescinding his job offer, stating that his beliefs would be “upsetting and offensive” to their patients and would “exacerbate … [their] anxiety and depression.”
Touchstone Support <a href="https://touchstonesupport.org.uk/about-us/senior-leadership-team/">boasts</a> its “Top 100 LGBTQ+ Inclusive Employer” ranking and “Gold” award from the controversial organization <a href="https://www.stonewall.org.uk/">Stonewall</a>, which <a href="https://www.stonewall.org.uk/join-diversity-champions-programme">promotes</a> left-wing LGBTQ agenda items in workplaces. The company’s logo even dons the Pride and transgender flags’ colors.
Ngole is now pursuing legal action against the organization under the U.K. Equality Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. 
Andrea Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, which is representing Ngole, said, “Telling an employee they must &#8217;embrace and promote&#8217; homosexuality as a condition of employment sets a dark and troubling precedent. If left unchallenged it would see Christians who manifest their beliefs barred from working in the NHS.”
The Centre <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/christian-social-worker-takes-legal-action-job-withdrawn-told-embrace-promote-lgbt-rights">said</a> that he was “the best performing candidate in interview, gaining the highest marks of any candidate on an equality and diversity assessment.”
Religious discrimination is not new for Ngole, as he won a case against the University of Sheffield, which had expelled him for his Christian beliefs. In 2016, the university expelled him for quoting Bible verses about homosexuality in a Facebook discussion and told him not to express his views, even in church, according to <a href="https://www2.cbn.com/news/world/british-court-upholds-right-christians-freely-express-their-faith">CBN News</a>. 
The U.K. Court of Appeal rebuked the university in a landmark free speech victory, saying, “The mere expression of religious views about sin does not necessarily connote discrimination.&#8221; The Court of Appeal also found that Ngole would “never discriminate against anyone” because of his religious views. His victory in the case played a role in the offer being rescinded, according to The Daily Mail.
This type of discrimination is on the rise in the U.K., <a href="https://www2.cbn.com/news/world/christian-social-worker-uk-denied-job-refusing-pledge-allegiance-lgbt-flag">according</a> to Williams. &#8220;What we see here is the confident totalitarianism of an organization that has been captured by Stonewall and will do anything to keep their Stonewall ranking as high as possible,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Viewpoint discrimination is escalating in the UK at an alarming rate &#8230; Anyone who does not comply and celebrate LGBT ideology must become a &#8216;non-person.'&#8221;
Viewpoint discrimination is a rising concern for British politicians. As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/u-k-bank-refuses-to-open-account-for-conservative-parent-group-report">reported</a>, U.K. banks backed by the Stonewall group have denied or shut individuals’ accounts for their political views or positions. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12258933/Rishi-Sunak-issues-warning-banks-blacklisting-customers-controversial-views.html">vowed</a> to investigate such discrimination.

Felix Ngole court case

Christian Social Worker Sues After Losing Job Offer, Told He Must ‘Embrace And Promote Homosexual Rights’

Christian Social Worker Sues After Losing Job Offer, Told He Must 'Embrace And Promote Homosexual Rights'

Discrimination

LGBT

Religious Freedom

Social Issues

United Kingdom

In a landmark victory for free speech, the Supreme Court on Friday struck down a Colorado law that would have punished a Christian graphic designer who declined to design a website for a same-sex wedding that violated her religious beliefs.
In a 6-3 decision in the case of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">303 Creative LLC v. Elenis</a>, the high court cited the First Amendment in ruling that Lorie Smith could not be forced by state civil rights law to design websites that run counter to her sincerely-held religious beliefs. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, saying &#8220;no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution.&#8221;
&#8220;The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees,&#8221; Gorsuch <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>.
Smith said she is willing to work with anyone regardless of their sexual orientation, but objected to being forced to build wedding websites for same-sex couples because same-sex marriage goes against her deeply held beliefs.
“There are some messages I can’t create no matter who requests them,” Smith <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-lorie-smith/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in December.
Smith said she delayed expanding her business to start designing wedding websites because she was worried her beliefs would bump up against a Colorado public accommodations law. Colorado argued that Smith simply wanted to discriminate against same-sex couples and said the public accommodations law governs the conduct, not the speech of a person running a Colorado business.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1687972190386000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2poz7lKxiyhNV9ljBcMSzM">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
&#8220;Under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic — no matter the message — if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait,&#8221; Gorsuch wrote for the majority.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, calling the ruling “profoundly wrong” and arguing that the Constitution “contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group.”
“Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people. The Supreme Court of the United States declares that a particular kind of business, though open to the public, has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. The Court does so for the first time in its history,” Sotomayor wrote.
&#8220;The immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status,&#8221; she added.
Gorsuch spent some of his majority opinion heavily criticizing Sotomayor&#8217;s dissent.
&#8220;It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case,&#8221; Gorsuch wrote.
The question at hand is, &#8220;Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?&#8221; Gorsuch said. &#8220;When the dissent finally gets around to that question— more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom,&#8221; he wrote.
<div class="page" title="Page 27">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
&#8220;In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position,&#8221; Gorsuch said.
The case is the most recent similar case coming out of Colorado.
In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In that case, the court reversed the Colorado Civil Rights Commission&#8217;s decision against Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, saying the state had failed to be neutral on religion.
The narrow ruling in 2018 avoided addressing the larger issue of anti-discrimination laws potentially clashing with freedom of religion and speech, eventually leading to the 303 Creative case coming before the court.
&#8220;This will go down as one of the most important free speech cases in the history of the court,&#8221; legal scholar Jonathan Turley <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/web-designer-victory-supreme-court-free-speech-win-all" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> on Fox News in response to Friday&#8217;s ruling.
&#8220;Many of us have argued that these cases should not be religion clause cases but free speech cases,&#8221; Turley said. &#8220;What happened here is that the court could have considered both issues but refused the religion clause claim and said that they were only going to look at free speech. And this is why, because Gorsuch is saying that we&#8217;ve always been clear — you can&#8217;t coerce people to say things.&#8221;
Turley also clarified that the court&#8217;s decision does not give businesses a license to discriminate against customers.
&#8220;These cases, Masterpiece Cakeshop as well as 303 Creative, do not change the public accommodation laws. You cannot be refused to go into stores and buy items that are pre-made, for example, based on your race or your status,&#8221; Turley said. &#8220;What the court is saying here is that with these types of creative products, it is speech.&#8221;
</div>
</div>
</div>
This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

Supreme Court of the United States 303 Creative v Elenis

Supreme Court Sides With Christian Graphic Designer, Says State Can’t Force Her To Violate Her Religious Beliefs

Supreme Court Sides With Christian Graphic Designer, Says State Can't Force Her To Violate Her Religious Beliefs

Politics

SCOTUS

What is with this guy? President Joe Biden has a particular penchant, some might say a pathological need, to tell obvious lies at the weirdest times.
The latest example of this is Biden&#8217;s claim that he had a great awakening on gay marriage — while a senior in high school — way back around 1960 &#8211; 1961. Biden&#8217;s voting record and personal statements show that this can&#8217;t possibly be true.
Interviewer Kal Penn asked the president a straightforward question: &#8220;My question for you, Mr. President, is you codified support for same-sex marriages &#8230; I&#8217;m curious what your evolution was like on marriage equality, and what the federal government might be able to do to protect LGBTQ Americans, especially trans kids who are dealing with all these regressive state laws that are popping up right now?&#8221;
The real answer is that Biden supported the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s and asserted that marriage is between one man and one woman until a 2012 &#8220;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/13/politics/white-house-same-sex-marriage-signing-ceremony/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Meet the Press</a>&#8221; interview that was deemed shocking at the time.
Yet here&#8217;s what Biden said this week: &#8220;I can remember exactly when my epiphany was,&#8221; Biden said, which earned a chuckle from Penn.
&#8220;I hadn&#8217;t thought much about it, to tell you the truth,&#8221; he claimed. &#8220;I was a senior in high school, and my dad was dropping me off. I remember I was about to get out of the car, and I look to my right, two well-dressed men in suits kissed each other. They gave each other a kiss.&#8221;
&#8220;And I&#8217;ll never forget it, I looked at my dad, and he said, &#8216;Joey, it&#8217;s simple. They love each other. It&#8217;s simple,&#8217; — now I&#8217;m not joking &#8230;&#8221; he said, which is typically the &#8220;tell&#8221; that Biden is just pulling stuff out of his keister, to put it mildly.
He continued, &#8220;And it&#8217;s never been, it&#8217;s never been &#8230; It&#8217;s just that simple,&#8221; he explained. &#8220;It doesn&#8217;t matter whether it&#8217;s same-sex or a heterosexual couple. They should be married. What is the problem?&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Biden: “I can remember exactly when my epiphany [on supporting gay marriage] was &#8230; I was a senior in high school. And my dad was dropping me off and I remember I was about to get out of the car and I looked to my right and two well-dressed men in suits kissed each other.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/0aHlUQ7ghJ">pic.twitter.com/0aHlUQ7ghJ</a>
&mdash; Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) <a href="https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1635603660917948416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 14, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Perhaps the best part of the entire answer is the interviewer&#8217;s face as he nods along and smiles. Had it been a real interview, Penn would have called out Biden.
For example, in 2006, Biden had a very different answer on the matter:
&#8220;We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act,&#8221; he said on &#8220;Meet The Press&#8221; while a potential constitutional amendment protecting the sanctity of marriage was being floated.
&#8220;We&#8217;ve all voted &#8230; or I&#8217;ve voted, and I&#8217;ve said look, &#8216;Marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that.&#8217; Nobody&#8217;s violated that law,&#8221; he added. There&#8217;s been no challenge in that law? Why do we need a constitutional amendment? Marriage is between a man and a woman. What&#8217;s the game going on here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxnDcTmXK0s
In a 2008 vice presidential debate, Biden also point-blank said, &#8220;No&#8221; when asked if he supports gay marriage.
So, Biden wants the American people to believe that not only did he see two grown men kissing each other in broad daylight 60 years ago, but that his Roman Catholic dad born in 1915 had progressive 21st century views on the topic, causing him to have a Eureka moment on the issue despite decades of evidence disproving that?
Give me a break.
<div role="button" aria-label="37 seconds rarity have a law the Defense of">
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-is-the-most-polish-jewish-black-puerto-rican-greek-irish-catholic-president-we-have-ever-had" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biden Is The Most Polish-Jewish-Black-Puerto Rican-Greek-Irish-Catholic President We Have Ever Had</a>
</div>

WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 17: U.S. President Joe Biden blows a kiss to the audience before signing the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law in the East Room of the White House on June 17, 2021 in Washington, DC.

Biden: I Had An ‘Epiphany’ And Began Supporting Gay Marriage In High School

Biden: I Had An 'Epiphany' And Began Supporting Gay Marriage In High School

Executive

Gay Rights

History

Joe Biden

The Church of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/england" target="_blank" rel="noopener">England</a> said it will allow blessings for same-sex couples who marry, but will not allow its priests to officiate same-sex marriages in its churches and has decided not to redefine Holy Matrimony.
The Wednesday announcement comes after five years of heated debate “expected to be outlined in a report” ahead of the church&#8217;s General Synod that meets next month in London, per the Associated Press.
“This response reflects the diversity of views in the Church of England on questions of sexuality, relationships and marriage. I rejoice in that diversity and I welcome this way of reflecting it in the life of our church,” Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, the spiritual leader of the Anglican Church, said in a <a href="https://apnews.com/article/anglicanism-england-wales-marriage-religion-5086b3376929156e5f41461193a67aa5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a>.
The Archbishop of York, the Most Rev&#8217;d Stephen Cottrell, also <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64313367" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> BBC Radio 4&#8217;s &#8220;Today&#8221; that &#8220;it&#8217;s not same-sex marriage,&#8221; but marked a &#8220;real step forward&#8221; for the church.
&#8220;What I want to emphasise is that with these proposals, people who have entered into a same-sex marriage or who are in a civil partnership will be welcomed into the Church at a service of dedication and acknowledgment of that relationship,&#8221; Cottrell added. &#8220;That is a change from where we are at the moment.&#8221;
The church&#8217;s compromise <a href="https://www.churchofengland.org/media-and-news/press-releases/bishops-propose-prayers-thanksgiving-dedication-and-gods-blessing" target="_blank" rel="noopener">position</a> will hold that &#8220;same-sex couples would still not be able to get married in a Church of England church, but could have a service in which there would be prayers of dedication, thanksgiving or for God’s blessing on the couple in church following a civil marriage or partnership.&#8221;
As part of the new announcement, the Bishops of the Church of England intend to issue an apology later this week to LGBTQ people over the &#8220;rejection, exclusion, and hostility&#8221; they have faced in churches.
The Church of England will urge all congregations in its care to welcome same-sex couples “unreservedly and joyfully,&#8221; according to its update.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in the U.K. since 2013, but the church&#8217;s teaching has remained unchanged. The new position by the Church of England will also stand at odds with the Church of Scotland, which already allows same-sex weddings.
LGBT activists have argued that the church&#8217;s announcement is insufficient.
“The discrimination embedded into these proposals is what concerns me. It’s very clear that there is a clear distinction in their minds between holy matrimony and civil marriage and that distinction is what causes so many young LGBT people to feel second class,&#8221; Jayne Ozanne, a prominent LGBT campaigner, said, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/18/church-of-england-gay-marriage-ban/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Washington Post</a>.
British evangelical leader Ian Paul took the opposing view. He argued that the decision will retain the traditional definition of marriage, but will cause problems as the church is calling leaders to &#8220;bless&#8221; a marriage that opposes church teachings.
“There is going to be no change to the doctrine of marriage. That’s very clear. But the waters have been muddied in quite an unhelpful way. Saying that the doctrine is not going to change and in the same breath saying we want to bless same-sex relationships is entirely incoherent, entirely contradictory,&#8221; he <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/18/church-of-england-bishops-refuse-to-back-gay-marriage" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stated</a>.

Justin Welby

Church Of England Allows Blessings For Same-Sex Civil Marriages

England

Marriage

Christian music star <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/i-forgot-lyrics-amy-grant-talks-recovering-from-major-bike-accident-in-july/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Amy Grant</a> drew a firestorm of commentary — some supportive and some critical — when reports began circulating that she planned to host a same-sex wedding for her niece.
<a href="https://dailywire.com/news/everything-shes-been-going-through-vince-gill-updates-fans-on-wife-amy-grants-condition-after-major-accident/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Grant</a> spoke with The Washington Post for a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2022/11/29/amy-grant-kennedy-center-honors/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recent profile</a> ahead of her appearance at the Kennedy Center Honors — she was the first contemporary Christian artist to receive that award — and she told the outlet that her niece&#8217;s wedding would be the first &#8220;bride and bride&#8221; arrangement for her family.
&#8220;Honestly, from a faith perspective, I do always say, &#8216;Jesus, you just narrowed it down to two things: love God and love each other.&#8217; I mean, hey — that’s pretty simple,&#8221; Grant said.
Some cheered Grant&#8217;s announcement, sharing their thoughts on Twitter.
&#8220;For so many of us gay church boys of a specific era, Amy Grant was our first kind of crush/pop star, so seeing her host her niece’s same-sex wedding is amazing,&#8221; actor Emerson Collins tweeted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
For so many of us gay church boys of a specific era, Amy Grant was our first kind of crush/pop star, so seeing her host her niece’s same-sex wedding is amazing. <a href="https://t.co/HXwMGe9NaR">https://t.co/HXwMGe9NaR</a>
&mdash; Emerson Collins (@ActuallyEmerson) <a href="https://twitter.com/ActuallyEmerson/status/1603117981726257152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Amy Grant getting soft-canceled for defying conservative evangelical expectations …the 90s are back!&#8221; Ruth Graham <a href="https://twitter.com/publicroad/status/1604856583812440065" target="_blank" rel="noopener">commented</a>.
Not all of the responses were positive, however.
&#8220;Amy Grant announced she and her husband Vince Gill are going to host a same-sex wedding on their farm for her niece. Amy is quoted as saying, &#8216;Jesus, you just narrowed it down to two things: love God &amp; love each other.&#8217; This isn’t love, it’s compromise,&#8221; Terri Green <a href="https://twitter.com/TerriGreenUSA/status/1604948256886333440" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
The Rev. Franklin Graham was also among those who criticized the singer&#8217;s position, tweeting, &#8220;Yes, we are to love God &amp; love each other. But if we love God, we will seek to obey His Word. Jesus told us, &#8216;If you love Me, keep My commandments&#8217; (John 14:15). God defines what is sin, not us; &amp; His Word is clear that homosexuality is a sin.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
For me, loving others also means caring about their souls &amp; where they will spend eternity. It means loving people enough to tell them the truth from the Word of God. The authority of God’s Word is something we can never compromise on.
&mdash; Franklin Graham (@Franklin_Graham) <a href="https://twitter.com/Franklin_Graham/status/1604635091015286784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 19, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Graham went on to say that loving people did not always mean simply accepting everything they did, noting that sometimes caring about their souls and their relationship with God was loving them as well.
&#8220;It means loving people enough to tell them the truth from the Word of God. The authority of God&#8217;s Word is something we can never compromise on,&#8221; he added.
Grant is <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2022/11/29/amy-grant-kennedy-center-honors/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">no stranger to controversy</a> — she took backlash over the cover photo of her sophomore album, in which she was pictured wearing a button-down shirt with the top three buttons undone. She was later accused of &#8220;selling out&#8221; when she released the video for her hit song &#8220;Baby, Baby&#8221; — because the video featured her dancing with a man who was not her husband.
In 1999, she divorced her then-husband Gary Chapman — and married country music star Vince Gill a year later. And despite the fact that both insisted they had only been friends when they were married to other people, the scandal grew legs, and several Christian music stations stopped playing her music.
Gill had nothing but praise for the way his wife stood tall through all the criticism: &#8220;The beauty is [the criticism] doesn’t seem to faze her and sure as hell doesn’t change her.&#8221;

President Biden Hosts Kennedy Center Honorees Reception

Twitter Blows Up Over Christian Music Star Hosting Same-Sex Wedding For Her Niece

Twitter Blows Up Over Christian Music Star Amy Grant Hosting Same-Sex Wedding For Her Niece

Celebrities

Music Industry

Twitter

&#8220;The View&#8221; co-host Whoopi Goldberg suggested that all of the Republicans who <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/breaking-dem-controlled-senate-passes-same-sex-marriage-bill-12-republicans-support/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">voted in favor</a> of the so-called <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dem-controlled-house-passes-same-sex-marriage-bill-39-republicans-support/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Respect for Marriage Act</a> may have done so at the stern behest of a friend — or &#8220;perhaps a lover.&#8221;
During Wednesday&#8217;s broadcast of the long-running ABC midday talk show, Goldberg and her co-hosts discussed the legislation — which President Joe Biden signed into law on Tuesday in a <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/biden-signs-same-sex-marriage-bill-drag-queens-invited-to-lavish-wh-ceremony/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lavish ceremony</a> that included drag queens, among others.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Damned if you do, damned if you don&#39;<a href="https://t.co/CXBiiovtrY">https://t.co/CXBiiovtrY</a> Behar suggests Congressional Republicans opposed to the Respect for Marriage Act are also against interracial marriage. Whoopi suggests Republicans who did vote for it did so at the behest of a secret gay lover. <a href="https://t.co/gcWhSPC499">pic.twitter.com/gcWhSPC499</a>
&mdash; Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1603060942991933441?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Co-host <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/that-really-makes-me-nuts-joy-behar-ties-colorado-springs-shooting-to-lauren-boeberts-2021-christmas-photo/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joy Behar</a> was first to address the topic, and she complained about the Republicans who had not voted to federally codify same-sex marriage. She asked whether those same people have also been opposed to interracial marriage, which was also federally protected under the new law.
&#8220;Does that mean that these Republicans who are against the gay marriage bill are also against interracial marriage?&#8221; she asked, and her co-hosts all began talking at once.
&#8220;No, it&#8217;s not that,&#8221; Republican co-host <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/thats-not-fairsuch-a-cheap-shot-the-view-blows-up-as-alyssa-farah-griffin-and-kellyanne-conway-clash/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alyssa Farah Griffin</a> cut in, adding in exaggerated tones. &#8220;It&#8217;s the fear of like polyamory or, like, you&#8217;re going to marry a relative &#8230; I mean, I think.&#8221;
&#8220;That must be the slippery slope. Bestiality? Is that what they&#8217;re thinking?&#8221; co-host Sunny Hostin asked, prompting loud laughter from the audience.
Griffin went on to argue that straight couples were more likely to damage traditional marriage than same-sex couples were, and Goldberg promptly agreed: &#8220;That&#8217;s the biggest threat.&#8221;
&#8220;Anytime somebody decides that they want to get married, celebrate them,&#8221; <a href="https://dailywire.com/news/let-me-explain-something-exasperated-whoopi-lectures-joni-ernst-says-iowa-is-too-white-to-lead-primaries/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Goldberg</a> insisted, going on to claim that putting rules on marriage was like &#8220;giving the finger&#8221; to same-sex couples who were already married.
&#8220;And I suspect many of these folks voted the way they did because somebody they know said, &#8216;If you don&#8217;t vote this way, I&#8217;ll never speak to you again,'&#8221; Goldberg concluded, apparently suggesting that some Republicans may have only voted in favor of the measure under duress. &#8220;Perhaps a lover? Maybe a friend.&#8221;
Across both legislative chambers, a total of 51 Republicans voted to pass the Respect for Marriage Act — 39 of them in the House of Representatives and 12 in the Senate.

“I Got Somethin’ To Tell You” Screening And Q+A With Director Whoopi Goldberg Exclusively For American Express Cardmembers

‘Perhaps A Lover?’: Whoopi Goldberg Hints Republicans Who Voted For Marriage Bill Were Threatened To Do So

Whoopi Goldberg Hints Republicans Who Voted For Marriage Bill Were Threatened To Do So

Media

Respect for Marriage Act

The View

Whoopi Goldberg

President <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/biden-administration" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joe Biden</a> invited <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/drag-queen" target="_blank" rel="noopener">drag queen</a> Marti G. Cummings to attend the signing of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/respect-for-marriage-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Respect for Marriage Act</a> at the <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/white-house" target="_blank" rel="noopener">White House</a>.
Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have greenlit the legislation, which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dem-controlled-house-passes-same-sex-marriage-bill-39-republicans-support" target="_blank" rel="noopener">enshrines same-sex marriage</a> protections into federal law in accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges. Democratic lawmakers recruited 39 Republicans in the lower chamber and 10 in the upper chamber to support the bill, which is expected to be signed into law on Tuesday.
Cummings shared a screenshot of the White House invitation on social media and expressed thankfulness toward the Biden administration.
“To be a non-binary drag artist invited to the White House is something I never imagined would happen,” the drag queen <a href="https://twitter.com/MartiGCummings/status/1602335170706669575" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. “Grateful doesn’t begin to express the emotions I feel.”
Cummings recently mounted an <a href="https://twitter.com/MartiGCummings/status/1411337557653307392" target="_blank" rel="noopener">unsuccessful campaign</a> for the New York City Council, remarking in the magazine Out that he <a href="https://www.out.com/out-exclusives/2019/9/05/meet-drag-queen-running-new-york-city-council" target="_blank" rel="noopener">desires</a> to “not only be a drag queen who&#8217;s funny, silly, and entertaining, but somebody who took that platform and used it for something bigger.”
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) remarked in a <a href="https://twitter.com/SenMikeLee/status/1593000633954865153?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1593000633954865153%7Ctwgr%5E25353db1d07f622a0ebb595d228af91f6e7c8813%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fsenate-advances-same-sex-marriage-bill-with-some-gop-support" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> that he voted against a motion to advance the bill because its “religious liberty protections” were “severely anemic and largely illusory.” The lawmaker had expressed concern that religious individuals and organizations could be exposed to litigation and the loss of nonprofit status under the new law.
Biden nevertheless <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/12/08/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-bipartisan-house-passage-of-the-respect-for-marriage-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">praised</a> the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, saying that “millions of marriages and families” have been put at ease following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and other previous opinions purporting a constitutional right to abortion.
“On this day, Jill and I are thinking of the courageous couples and fiercely committed advocates who have fought for decades to secure nationwide marriage equality at the Supreme Court and in Congress,” he said. “While we are one step closer on our long journey to build a more perfect union, we must never stop fighting for full equality for LGBTQI+ Americans and all Americans.”
Cummings also conducts activism on behalf of the “queer youth population” in New York City, according to Out. “I also think we need young people at the table. We need new, fresh voices,” Cummings continued. “We have a lot of queer elected officials now, but we need really, really progressive queer candidates. We need candidates who are going to take us to that next level. New York politics for a long time has been dynasty politics, and we should bring some new people to the table because politics should be open to everybody.”
Biden recently made waves by inviting Dylan Mulvaney, a biological man who identifies as a transgender woman, to the White House to discuss transgender issues.

Menu