It will take great courage to break the left’s cultural taboos and take the heat for it. A society conditioned by Newspeak will be scandalized by the thoughtcrime of plain-spoken truth. The man who says things outside the Overton window will take the first arrows. He may sacrifice his reputation on the altar of honesty but will inspire others to add their voices. The more they speak, their accumulated voices move the Overton window, which reduces the cost for each new voice that enters their ranks.

The Overton window can shift when a motivated minority of influential voices are committed to speaking boldly on issues they care about.
The Overton Window is named after political analyst Joseph Overton, who noticed that public approval or disapproval drives policy. It represents what is generally believed to be right or wrong. At one time, our shared morality was derived from the Bible, which also tells us what happens when people reject it. They get the book of Judges, where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). In other words, biblical morality becomes mob morality. The social pressure to conform to mob morality is a big part of what many now call the Overton window.
The Overton window determines that some ideas are “mainstream” but other ideas are “extreme.” Ethics aren’t based on objective standards, it’s a popularity contest. And it’s fickle. Twenty years ago, supporting “gay marriage” was an extreme position, but it’s considered mainstream. The shift has been so dramatic that it’s considered extreme to oppose it. Social pressure is its animating force. Another example is mutilating the genitals of children. This was once a barbaric practice that only happened in third-world countries. Today, it’s done in the suburbs and covered by health insurance.
Labels are powerful. Most people want to be considered reasonable and moderate. No one wants to be an “extremist,” a “radical,” or an “alarmist.” Derogatory labels like these are effective tools in the hands of the thought police that cause people to feel shame for holding unfashionable views. Shame can drive public opinion, leading people to self-censor or adapt their views, lest they be cast into the outer darkness with the rest of the “deplorables.”
Moving the Overton Window
Since the Overton Window is a sociological phenomenon, no one directly controls it and everyone participates in it. That’s good news. Even better, it’s not a democracy. The majority doesn’t move the Overton window, the Overton window moves them. The window itself is moved by whoever has the courage and influence to move it in their direction. In recent weeks, we’ve seen how a motivated minority with a compelling message can make a difference.
For example, for over a year now, pearl-clutching and hang-wringing regime evangelicals have policed the Overton window with warnings about how “Christian Nationalism” will destroy our gospel witness in the public square. Pastor Doug Wilson, considered a chief proponent of Christian Nationalism (though he prefers to speak of “mere Christendom”), remains unmoved by the pressure to keep silent about Christ’s Lordship over government. 
Wilson’s affable demeanor combined with his reasonable articulation of biblical principles has earned him a significant following of ordinary Christians who are hungry for bold leadership. Wilson’s recent appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show was captioned in a tweet that said, “Pastor Doug Wilson is the Christian Nationalist they warned you about.” In less than 24 hours, this tweet gained over 4.6 million views. Wilson’s joyful courage is opening the Overton window to the right and forcing a needed debate about how Christian political engagement in the modern world. 
To give another example, Dusty Deevers was an obscure, Baptist pastor in Oklahoma who had the guts to defy the rhetorical overlords and move the window to the right. He advocated for Christian positions that are considered “controversial” because the Overton window deems them unacceptable. What were these controversial views? He believes abortion is murder and mothers who abort their children should be prosecuted as criminals, not treated as “second victims.” He also believes pornography is a social disaster that destroys marriages and increases sex addiction, human trafficking, and child exploitation.
Deevers had the nerve to campaign precisely on these issues and won a state senate seat. He then had the gall to keep his campaign promise by introducing legislation to outlaw pornography and abolish abortion in his state. Predictably, the outrage machine fired up, inviting derisive coverage from Rolling Stone and a mocking monologue from Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon.
This press coverage was an unexpected gift, however, because it forced a public debate that thrust his local message into a national debate. He exposed the harmful and well-documented effects of pornography. Videos of women smiling, dancing around, and celebrating their abortions gained a lot of traction. They aren’t victims. They are celebrating the murder of their own children. Some pro-life organizations were exposed for hypocritically lobbying against legislation that would abolish abortion. Deevers’ strategy to “go on the offense” highlighted wicked practices and exposed his detractors for defending them. His plain-spoken courage catapulted his long-shot candidacy to victory and gave his message national exposure that didn’t cost him a dime.
Since the Overton window can be pried open when a motivated minority of outspoken voices articulate an important message, what’s preventing us from doing it? This isn’t as impossible as it sounds.
Christians and the Overton Window
In public discourse, Christians easily fall into the trap of letting the Overton window “frame” how issues are presented. For example, every discussion of homosexuality must include some reference to how homosexuals were made in God’s image, though no discussion of any other sin requires such qualification.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Gregory S. Baylor |
Thursday, November 17, 2022
The Respect for Marriage Act was introduced in July and quickly pushed through the U.S. House of Representatives without any public hearings, enabling its proponents to mischaracterize the bill as a simple codification of Obergefell. Let’s be clear: the Respect for Marriage Act is unnecessary and could have a disastrous effect on religious freedom.

As soon as the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, activists went to work mischaracterizing the ruling.
Many used the decision—and particularly Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence—to claim that the Court could revisit other rulings, including the one in Obergefell v. Hodges, which created a constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage.
Using this feigned outrage as a cover, these activists pushed for a federal law called the Respect for Marriage Act.
The Respect for Marriage Act was introduced in July and quickly pushed through the U.S. House of Representatives without any public hearings, enabling its proponents to mischaracterize the bill as a simple codification of Obergefell.
Let’s be clear: the Respect for Marriage Act is unnecessary and could have a disastrous effect on religious freedom.
What is the Respect for Marriage Act?
The so-called Respect for Marriage Act is a misnamed bill that expands not only what marriage means, but also who can be sued for disagreeing with the new meaning of marriage.
While proponents of the bill claim that it simply codifies the 2015 Obergefell decision, in reality it is an intentional attack on the religious freedom of millions of Americans with sincerely held beliefs about marriage.
The Respect for Marriage Act threatens religious freedom and the institution of marriage in multiple ways:

It further embeds a false definition of marriage in the American legal fabric.
It opens the door to federal recognition of polygamous relationships.
It jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that exercise their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
It endangers faith-based social-service organizations by threatening litigation and liability risk if they follow their views on marriage when working with the government.

The truth is the Respect for Marriage Act does nothing to change the status of same-sex marriage or the benefits afforded to same-sex couples following Obergefell. It does much, however, to endanger religious freedom.
Has the Respect for Marriage Act passed Congress?
On July 19, 2022, the House passed the Respect for Marriage Act. The vote caught many by surprise: not only did it happen quickly—just one day after the bill was introduced—but a surprising 47 Republicans, many of whom likely did not appreciate the threat it posed to religious liberty, voted in favor of the bill.
As the bill moved over to the U.S. Senate, a strong coalition of religious organizations voiced concerns and urged the Senate to slow down and take time to consider its true consequences.
An alliance of over 80 groups sent Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell a letter urging him to stand firm against pressures to move the bill forward, and over 2,000 churches and ministries sent a letter to the Senate specifically calling attention to the effects of the bill on their ability to serve their communities in accordance with their religious beliefs. ADF organized and led both of these initiatives.
These efforts are working.
After the Respect for Marriage Act sped through the House, the Senate has delayed consideration of the bill so senators can better understand the harms it will cause to countless Americans. While many have voiced total opposition to the bill, a small group of senators from both parties, led by Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Susan Collins of Maine, are attempting to amend the bill to address the concerns that have been raised.
Unfortunately, their proposed amendment does not adequately address the bill’s significant religious freedom issues.
What would the proposed amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act do?
While these senators seem to acknowledge the objections to the Respect for Marriage Act, their amendment fails to address the bill’s problems in a substantive way.
Here are the major issues with this amendment:

There are no real protections for religious individuals or organizations.

The amendment adds a new section to the Respect for Marriage Act that purports to address religious liberty and conscience concerns.
But rather than adding any new concrete protections for religious individuals and organizations threatened by the Respect for Marriage Act, the new section simply states that those Americans whose beliefs are infringed can invoke already existing legal protections, like the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). As such, this new provision does not fix the bill’s negative impact on religious exercise and freedom of conscience. Those targeted under the bill will be forced to spend years in litigation and thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees to protect their rights.

The amendment leaves numerous religious social-service organizations vulnerable.

The proposed amendment adds language that confirms that churches and religious organizations would not be forced to solemnize or celebrate a marriage against their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, this proposed provision ignores the true threats to religious organizations. No one thinks the Respect for Marriage Act requires churches to solemnize marriages.
The real problem is that the bill can be used to punish social-service organizations like adoption or foster placement agencies that serve their communities in accordance with their religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The proposed amendment does nothing to help such organizations.

The amendment fails to address concerns over nonprofits’ tax-exempt status.

The amendment adds a new section that attempts to address concerns about the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that live out their beliefs about marriage.
Once again, the amendment fails to substantively remedy this problem. When the IRS determines whether an organization is “charitable” under the Internal Revenue Code, it asks whether the entity’s conduct is “contrary to public policy” or violates a “national policy.”
If the Respect for Marriage Act were enacted, the IRS could rely upon the bill to conclude that certain nonprofits are not “charitable.” The amendment’s new provision does nothing to prevent this.
Unfortunately, the proposed amendment utterly fails to meaningfully address the serious religious freedom problems with the Respect for Marriage Act. The inclusion of provisions that purport to address religious freedom concerns may be a sign that senators heard the criticisms of the bill, but the hollow nature of the amendment demonstrates they do not understand the depth of the concerns being raised.
How can I advocate for marriage and religious freedom?
Alliance Defending Freedom is working hard to take a stand for marriage by opposing this bill, but it is imperative that senators hear from their constituents about the threat to religious liberty and the institution of marriage that the Respect for Marriage Act represents—even if amended.
We need the Senate to hear from you.
The Senate is expected to vote on the Respect for Marriage Act before the end of the year. Call your two senators and ask them to vote NO on the Respect for Marriage Act. You can find your senators’ phone numbers on this page by clicking on your state.
When you call them, remind them about the three main problems with the bill:

It empowers the government to punish tens of millions of Americans who wish to live according to their deeply held beliefs.
It exposes religious individuals and organizations to predatory lawsuits.
It could weaponize the IRS against faith-based organizations by threatening their nonprofit status.

Every phone call to a senator helps. The Respect for Marriage Act has little to do with protecting rights—quite the opposite. Its text betrays an intent to stigmatize and take rights away, especially from people of faith.
Tell your senator to stand firm against these blatant attacks on religious freedom and the institution of marriage.
Source
Related Posts:

It is true that what Kersey wrote would likely be offensive to most homosexuals. That doesn’t mean there was anything wrong with him saying it. There was nothing hateful about Kersey’s words, certainly nothing about the inherent value of a person or anything wishing them ill will. The claim that what he said is the same as saying a racial slur or cursing all homosexuals is preposterous. Disagreement is not hate. 

The former officer, 19 year-old Jacob Kersey, began working for the Port Wentworth Police Department near Savannah, Georgia, in May 2021 and was reportedly doing well — until his Facebook post caused him to be placed on administrative leave. It’s not the first time social media posts have resulted in problems for police officers, but the content of this post was radically different. While some officers have been fired for posting racist, hateful, or obscene content, Kersey’s post was stating orthodox Christian beliefs.
Kersey spoke with John Wesley Reid about his experience:
God designed marriage. Marriage refers to Christ and the church. That’s why there is no such thing as homosexual marriage.
The following day, he received a call from his supervisor letting him know that he had received a complaint regarding the post and told Kersey to remove it. Kersey refused, but was later contacted by Lt. Justin Hardy, who said that the Port Wentworth Police Department did not want to be held liable in a “use of force” interaction with an LGBT person. Kersey continued to refuse to remove the post.
The next day he was called by Maj. Lee Sherrod and told he was being placed on administrative leave while the department launched an investigation.
Kersey says that Police Chief Matt Libby told him what he posted was the “same thing as saying the N-word and ‘[expletive] all those homosexuals.’”
Kersey also said that Capt. Nathan Jentzen told him Kersey’s free speech “was limited due to my position as … a police officer.”
After a week of paid administrative leave, Kersey’s active status was restored. In a letter dated January 13, Maj. Sherrod, the department’s human resource director, stated that after a review of Kersey’s known social media accounts, including a Christian podcast he had run for years, “we did not find sufficient evidence to establish a violation of any policies.”
However, the letter continued, the views he had shared “would likely be deemed offensive to protected classes” and could raise “reasonable concerns” about his ability to serve the LGBT community “objectively.” Any failure on his part to be seen as objective could cause him to be terminated.
While he would not be fired, Kersey says he was told to not post anything that could be deemed offensive on social media. Kersey says he was told that he could post Scripture but could not post his “interpretation or opinion on Scripture if it was deemed offensive.”
Read More
Related Posts: