December 7, 2014 5:30 pm -

A Wichita minister has been receiving a growing number of death threats since performing a wedding ceremony for 15 same-sex couples on the steps of the Sedgwick County Courthouse last month.

[su_center_ad]KMBC reports:

The Rev. Jackie Carter, pastor of the First Metropolitan Community Church, says some of the threats have been reported to police, but since the numbers of the callers don’t show up on her phone, she’s simply been told to “be careful.”

Carter told The Wichita Eagle someone called on Monday and she heard heavy breathing before someone rang the doorbell and someone else started throwing rocks at the windows.

The church has instructed people to leave the building in pairs, especially at night, the minister said.

This past week, an Arizona pastor gave a sermon called “AIDS: The Judgement of God” in which he advocated exterminating gays.

H/T: @ComgenKDT with thanks. [su_csky_ad]

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

43 responses to Minister Receiving Death Threats After Same-Sex Marriage Ceremony

  1. MIAtheistGal December 7th, 2014 at 5:37 pm

    Because nothing says ‘peaceful religion’ like death threats and rocks through windows? I’m thinking this isn’t the way to sell your message…

    Poor Minister doesn’t deserve this. She’s simply ministering to everyone.

    • Larry Schmitt December 7th, 2014 at 8:41 pm

      Peaceful religion? That’s the phrase they usually sarcastically reserve for Islam.

  2. tuckerb December 7th, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    WTF is wrong with people? Although same sex marriage has been legal up here for 10 years, it is still a real problem for many. Ironically, the same people who are threatening Pastor Jackie Carter will claim to be “Christians”….sick, sad world.

  3. arc99 December 7th, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    So where are all the evangelical Christians condemning these threats of terrorism?

    The absence of condemnation obviously means it is ok with Christians to issue death threats.

    That is how they tell us to view Muslims. Sauce for the goose as they say.

  4. Red Mann December 7th, 2014 at 7:39 pm

    Death threats, insults, “Burn in Hell”, desire that family member suffer horrible fates are part and parcel of the behavior of a depressingly large number of Christians in this country. When challenged about this behavior other Christians resort to the “No True Christian” version of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy and simply define the offenders away thereby absolving themselves of any blame.

  5. Pundit456 December 7th, 2014 at 7:47 pm

    By accusing Christians for the calls, commenters are acknowledging that this so called pastor and congregants are not christians.

    • Larry Schmitt December 7th, 2014 at 8:44 pm

      It’s a safe assumption, because non-christians usually don’t get upset by same sex marriages. It’s only the so-called “christians” who quote carefully excerpted parts of the buy-bull to prove that gays are going to hell.

      • Dwendt44 December 8th, 2014 at 1:26 am

        Cherry picking the bible is their favorite pastime.

      • Pundit456 December 8th, 2014 at 4:30 pm

        Actually no one really cares how God will choose to dispose of the lgbt subculture members once they have departed this life. That hell will be their destination is speculation because the perverse acts in which they engage and make public no doubt pale in comparison to the acts they keep secret.
        Case in point

        • OldLefty December 8th, 2014 at 4:44 pm

          That’s EXACTLY what the Taliban and ISIS say.

          Birds of a feather…

          Ya gotta love the arrogance of the pharisees.

    • searambler December 7th, 2014 at 9:28 pm

      Wrong. Try again.

      Christian fundies are amoral psychopaths. They are no better than terrorists.

    • Aielyn December 8th, 2014 at 1:04 am

      The term “Christian” is not some monolithic term, and you have to match an exact set of beliefs in order to have that name apply to you. It quite simply means “follower of Jesus”, and such followers can include both incredibly violent people and incredibly peaceful people.

      Personally, I’d call those who are attacking, and those who are being attacked, “christians”… but I’d call the ones being attacked the “true christians”, because the bible stories of Jesus (which I consider only stories, anyway) establish principles like turning the other cheek, only casting the first stone if you’re without sin, and love rather than hate.

      • red-diaper-baby 1942 December 8th, 2014 at 2:15 am

        Don’t you mean “you DON’T have to match an exact set of beliefs”? Then your post (which, by the way, I entirely agree with) would make more sense.

        • Aielyn December 8th, 2014 at 2:18 am

          I can see the vagueness of the construction of the sentence. My meaning is a valid reading of it. But your reading of it is also correct, due to the sloppy construction. I’ll fix it.

          EDIT: In case you’re confused by what I mean – the second part, after the comma, was intended as a continuation of “some monolithic term”. It might be more obvious if I put quotation marks around the clause: The term “Christian” is not “some monolithic term, and you have to match an exact set of beliefs in order to have that name apply to you”. However, I believe the edited phrasing that is now present removes the vagueness.

          • red-diaper-baby 1942 December 8th, 2014 at 2:35 am

            I get it now. Sorry to have been such a pedantic nitpicker, but before I retired I taught writing to English-as-a-second-language students at a European university for almost forty years. I guess old habits die hard.
            It’s actually an important point you made in your original post: too many people, on both the right and the left. spend their time arguing about what is and is not a “Christian”. Someone else on this thread refers to the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, which is highly relevant, but it’s probably more difficult for “true believers” and fundamentalists to apply it to themselves.

      • Pundit456 December 8th, 2014 at 4:02 pm

        To follow Christ means to strive to live a Christ-like life; which is outlined in the Bible (or “stories as you choose to call it). People who reject the tenets of the Bible are not Christians although there is no law that says they cannot call themselves whatever they choose.
        “Casting the first stone” is not a metaphor; it literally means to throw a stone and strike someone.
        Paul, under God’s guidance advised the Corinthians that unrepentant sinners were not to be tolerated within their midst.
        Then there is Adam and Eve; Sodom and Gomorrah; Ahab and Jezebel; Samson, etc.; point being that God is not given to suffering sinners gladly; nor does he compel Christians to do so.
        One need not hate to rebuke another for persistent bad behavior. Whether or not the reprobate chooses to characterize that disdain as hate is irrelevant.
        You dismiss the Bible as “only stories” yet you assert that others should be constrained by their “principles”; somehow I do not think you thought your response through.

    • jasperjava December 8th, 2014 at 2:21 am

      Anti-gay bigots are not Christians in any meaningful sense of the word. They believe that they’re Christians, however.

      Imagine where Jesus would rather be: at a peaceful, joyful, celebration of love like a wedding between two people declaring their lifelong commitment to each other, or in an angry rock-throwing mob making death threats? I think the answer is clear.

  6. FrankenPC . December 7th, 2014 at 8:02 pm

    In this country at this time in history, if you are getting death threats for following your heart (and you aren’t committing a felony), then you’re probably doing it right. Bravo minister.

  7. searambler December 7th, 2014 at 9:34 pm

    ‘Whatsoever you did to the least of my brethren, you did to me.’

    • Wayout December 7th, 2014 at 11:15 pm

      While it is wrong to threaten this person, it is equally wrong to think that God is blessing these so-called “marriages”. Come on people, there is no Scriptural justification for this sort of thing and everyone knows it.

      • Aielyn December 8th, 2014 at 1:00 am

        I challenge you to find a single quote in the bible against gay marriage. Keep in mind, I didn’t say gay sex, I said gay marriage, so Leviticus 18:22, for instance, doesn’t count. Note that it’s not enough to point out the absence of gay marriage in the bible, you have to provide direct evidence against gay marriage.

        Meanwhile, have a read of this, it might just open your eyes:

        Oh, and if you really want to quote the lines that go against homosexual sex, then I have to ask – do you eat pork? Do you wear cloth of two different threads? Do you keep slaves? Do you keep your hair cut short (assuming you’re male) while allowing your sideburns to grow out uncut? These are the topics on which many of the other rules within the same section of the bible address… and they aren’t a list of general rules, they’re a list of specific rules for the Israelites to distinguish them from those around them. I’m guessing you’re not an Israelite.

        • Dwendt44 December 8th, 2014 at 1:23 am

          Don’t expect way way out to check your link. Those inconvenient facts might teach him something and he seems to revel in his ignorance.

          • Aielyn December 8th, 2014 at 2:17 am

            Well, let’s wait and see. Anyone who is serious about their faith would believe that faith is meaningless unless it is being tested. If he has confidence in his faith, he will read it. If he refuses to read it, then it is a tacit admission that his faith is not solid and true, but is instead built upon shaky foundations within his mind. I respect people with true faith, I have no respect for people who refuse to challenge their faith.

          • Wayout December 8th, 2014 at 8:15 am

            Nice try, but I am not buying that person’s arguments. They all seek to justify this gay love thing through some highly debatable type of thinking. What better way is there than to cite scripture for your argument. Nope, not buying it.

            Jesus was about pure love, doing the will of the Father. Yes, we can all love each other no matter what sex we are, but the physical act is a perversion of natural law. God made the prefect mate for men, and the perfect mate for women – and it wasn’t someone of the same sex.

          • searambler December 8th, 2014 at 8:20 am

            Wayout won’t read it. He can’t. He has no moral foundation. No center. He’s a modern “christian” wind sock, blowing in the wind. Using an ancient book of fairy tales to justify his bigotry and discrimination. Because teh gay is icky.

        • Wayout December 8th, 2014 at 8:10 am

          Love within the normal confines of natural law. I guess in your book me going out and committing adultery is justified because of the love I might have for some other woman, right? I mean, it’s all about love.

          • jasperjava December 8th, 2014 at 8:43 am

            Adultery between consenting adults is not a crime, even if it goes against your religious values and your concept of “natural law”.

            It’s the same with marriage laws. The State is secular, and should not create laws based on your religious precepts or anyone else’s.

      • red-diaper-baby 1942 December 8th, 2014 at 2:10 am

        I don’t give a damn about “Scriptural justification”. It’s a book, for crying out loud: a very interesting collection of creation myths, stories and moral instruction. Some of them are disgustingly self-righteous and arrogant. Many of them are of considerable literary interest (the story of Job, for instance). I myself like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. I also like Isaiah, for the beautiful language (at least in the KJV). But come on, none of this has any relevance to present-day social, legal or political reality, other than any other literary work! You might as well try and apply the Iliad (and in fact many of our rightwing “warriors” seem to be doing so).

      • jasperjava December 8th, 2014 at 2:31 am

        Conservatives have tried to find Scriptural justification for slavery, segregation, bigotry, the subjugation of women as chattel and as second-class citizens. Conservatives have used Scripture to justify war, greed, murder, exploitation, and all kinds of atrocities.

        What Scripture does talk about a lot, is for the need for all human beings to love each other. That’s all the Scriptural justification needed to celebrate equal marriage rights.

        • Larry Schmitt December 8th, 2014 at 7:44 am

          Even the Klan refers to a white, Christian America. What would Jesus think of them?

        • Wayout December 8th, 2014 at 7:55 am

          I know, the concept of “natural law” means nothing to you. Even the decadent Romans of the time would never have considered the idea of people of the same sex getting married.

          • jasperjava December 8th, 2014 at 8:19 am

            We don’t base our laws on what the Romans did or did not do. There are a lot of things that the Romans approved of that we consider morally repugnant today.

            As for “natural” law, there’s nothing more natural than for two people who love each other to have the right to get married.

          • OldLefty December 8th, 2014 at 8:19 am

            I know, the concept of “natural law” means nothing to you.


            That is simply a human construct.

            Basically people look at the majority, and if they fit, and feel comfortable, they call it “natural law”, while ignoring evidence in nature to the contrary.

          • searambler December 8th, 2014 at 8:23 am

            “The conquest mentality and “cult of virility” shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free.”

            If you’re gonna try and support your ridiculous position, at least, at the very least, do a little damn research first. It’s not difficult. You argue like a ten year old.

          • searambler December 8th, 2014 at 8:56 am

            “Natural law”? LOL! You have no clue what that means. None at all. Personally, I prefer Hobbes’ natural laws.

            Really, you’ve lost it…

      • Larry Schmitt December 8th, 2014 at 7:43 am

        So you know what god thinks? How did you become his confidante? How can I too become an intimate of god and know what he wants?

        • Wayout December 8th, 2014 at 8:01 am

          By reading his word as laid down in the Bible, one can have a pretty good idea of what the Creator thinks. I suppose you think that the Creator of all life is just fine with killing the unborn too.

          Your justifications are of the here and now, the idea that anyone can do anything they want. In your book there is no sin, no evil, nothing that is un-natural. Even deviations from the norm are to be praised and lauded.

          • OldLefty December 8th, 2014 at 8:18 am

            By reading his word as laid down in the Bible,


            That’s what the Muslims say about the Koran and what the Hindus say about the Bhagavad Gita.

            The issue is the belief that the books one believes in actually “His” word, and not man’s word.

            “That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not.”
            [The Life and Works of Thomas Paine, Vol. 9 p. 134]

          • Larry Schmitt December 8th, 2014 at 8:30 am

            Yeah, whatever. You do know that the bible was written by people, right?

          • searambler December 8th, 2014 at 8:47 am

            Your “creator of all life” didn’t create you. Your parents did, when they had sex. The sperm that became you won the race that day. Shocking, I know.

            Believe whatever silliness you want, in the privacy of your house and your temple or synagogue or apse or tent or whatever place you use to worship. But keep your damn rules and beliefs OUT of secular law, and stop breaking the law by discriminating against people who don’t believe the same fairy tales you do. It’s indecent. The USA isn’t a christian theocracy, we’re not founded on or based on your religion. We are a constitutional republic. Marriage is a legal contract. Has been for thousands of years, since well before your deity was invented. Stop trying to muck it up for people who don’t buy what you are trying so hard to sell.

      • searambler December 8th, 2014 at 8:35 am

        It is wrong to threaten this person, period. Don’t use your religion as an excuse. You have absolutely no idea what your make-believe sky fairy master thinks. Your iron-age book of fables and parables was written by male middle-eastern farmers and shaman. Written BY man, FOR man, solely for the benefit of men in a patriarchal society. The fact that there are still people today who follow bits and pieces of it, while conveniently ignoring other whole portions of it, is a testament to the ignorance, stupidity and sheer gullibility of the human species. And the fear, the overwhelming, stifling fear, that this life is really all we got….

        There is no “scriptural justification” for air travel, either. Ever fly? Then I guess that makes you a sinner in your book.

      • tracey marie December 8th, 2014 at 8:26 pm

        lol, who cares what a book of myths says

  8. rg9rts December 8th, 2014 at 4:15 am

    From all those “good” christians