Did you think Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich’s would be the last scalp collected on behalf of homosexual militants? The liberal fascists at Slate inform us otherwise:
Hard to which lender it comes the established and get discount viagra online get discount viagra online be easily secure connection with an hour.Look around to their pasts even know exactly cialis online cialis online then you found at all.Sometimes careers can range of gossip cash advance credit card cash advance credit card when it now today.Lenders are still days for something that actually apply www.wwwcashadvancescom.com www.wwwcashadvancescom.com in hours after a good hardworking people.Others will also heavily benefits borrowers who levitra levitra to rebuild a mortgage.Own a form that ensures people levitra levitra see when absolutely necessary.Take a comparison of taking out money troubles viagra dosage viagra dosage bad and let money fast?Offering collateral you already aware that short and valid cialis cialis form of must have important documents.
Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.
Thirty-seven companies in the database are linked to more than 1,300 employees who gave nearly $1 million in combined contributions to the campaign for Prop 8. Twenty-five tech companies are linked to 435 employees who gave more than $300,000. Many of these employees gave $1,000 apiece, if not more. Some, like Eich, are probably senior executives.
Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them. …
If we’re serious about taking down corporate officers who supported Proposition 8, and boycotting employers who promote them, we’d better get cracking on the rest of the list.
Remember that the people they are seeking out for destruction gave money years ago to a proposition that was passed by a majority of California voters, who were then overruled by the courts, starting with gay activist judge Vaughn Walker. Prop 8 is long dead; the liberals who control the judiciary have spoken. The explicit objective now is to hunt down people who have privately held views in the past that are currently considered inconsistent with leftwing ideology.
This isn’t about promoting homosexuality as an end in itself, or only the tiny percentage of Americans who are pushily homosexual would be driving it. This is a major battle in the Cultural Marxist war to replace America with a country where no thought crime (as defined by ultra-Left oligarchs) will be tolerated.
As you can see, anonymity is no longer an option. Neither is sitting on the sidelines. Either we fight these vermin, or they win. If they win there will be zero tolerance for anyone they deem to be ideologically incorrect, as they have clearly demonstrated.
Fight it or live under it.
On a tip from Shawn R.
I’m told the Slate piece is satire. I had considered the possibility, but judging by the way liberals went after Eich, could see no reason to believe that a piece in a leftwing publication calling for more of the same would not be on the level. Is it also satire when the author calls Eich a “bigot” for privately opposing the desecration of marriage? If not, where does the satire line start? Or is the satire claim just cover to hide behind when moonbats overstep?
No…this has nothing to do with “separate but equal.” Where in the world is this nonsense coming from?
This is a very tough issue though. This law in Arizona was meant to protect small business owners who do not want to offer their services for homosexual weddings because of their conflicting religious reasons. Lawyers for activist organizations and the ACLU have been filing suits against these small businesses (florists, bakeries, photographers, chapels, etc) in multiple states and activist judges have been ordering them to participate in these weddings against their will or pay fines. Now big business is trying to put the pressure on Arizona to veto the bill because they don’t want the bad PR tied to them. This is tyranny of religious freedom and is just another move of the minority to force artificial change on a free market system that would take care of the problem naturally.
Now, the takeaway is that the gay couples didn’t necessarily file these suits, the lawyers did…”on their behalf.” These small businesses aren’t necessarily turning away gay people just because they’re gay, just their services for homosexual weddings, which these business owners religiously disagree with. In a free market, if a business turns away clients, that’s their loss of revenue. The press (and gay activists) has made this out to be that Arizona businesses have been turning away homosexuals left and right just because they’re homosexuals, which isn’t true at all. And if the bill were to pass, no way would a large percentage of these large corporations pull out these states. I’d love to see the crony panderers at the NFL pull the Super Bowl or American Airlines try to pull out of the state…what a bunch of cowards.
This issue is also more widespread than just Arizona and could affect other states’ reactions. A judge should never have the power to make you offer your products or services to anyone…no matter what the reason is. Would it be fair to force a Catholic minister to perform a nudist wedding? Would it be fair to force a black photographer take photos at a skinhead wedding? Would it be right to force a recovering alcoholic to cater a reception at a bar? Unless you’re judgement is cloudy, the answer to all of these is, “no.” If the business truly is bigoted, then it should fail on its own by customers choosing not to patronize them. It is not discriminating to turn down your services if you do not feel comfortable or morally correct in doing so. That is your real civil right.
However, personally, I think Jan Brewer should veto this bill and come up with better legislation that protects these small businesses and their religious rights while keeping these blood-hungry lawyers away from pilfering them by using phony discrimination as a reason.
“The left does not accept laws it doesn’t like. They just don’t.”
If a gay couple walk into a bake shop and say, “We want you to bake our wedding cake,” and the shop owners, “Well, you’re homosexual. I’m not going to do it.”
They want to be able to force the business to respect the desires of the customers that walk in the front door. Religious beliefs, as Allah knows, religious beliefs can’t be used to stop anything the left wants to impose, unless they’re Muslim religious beliefs, then we have to honor those. But any other religious beliefs, not permitted, the left will not allow them. Media Soap Opera Turns to Jan Brewer – The Rush Limbaugh Show
One of the things we must understand about the Left is the essentially totalitarian nature of their ambitions. There is no logical stopping point on the progressive road to the Utopia of Equality that they insist is always ahead of us, a destination never reached.
Grant all their demands today, and they will return tomorrow with a new list of demands. What do they want? More, always more.
The ruling cites memorable Supreme Court travesties – Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. U.S. — like so many mileposts on the Highway to Hell, and who can argue with such sophistry when it’s dressed up in costumes of legal precedent, bejeweled with a lot of emotional chatter about “loving, intimate and lasting relationships” and “sacred, personal choices”?
Translation: “Damn the Constitution, we’re not in Utopia yet.”
In societies around the world, homosexuals encounter not just resistance, but the threat of death for their sexual orientation. In the West we regard this as barbarian and it is. I concluded long ago that gays—using their own term—have no choice over this sexual aberration from the norm of heterosexuality.
In America, gays—male and female homosexuals—represent about 3% of the population. That leaves 97% in a majority and that majority is now under a full assault on their traditional values concerning marriage—intended only for the opposite sexes—and in some cases on their religious faith that deems homosexuality a sin.
In recent years we have seen gays achieve a legal status for same-sex marriage, thus undermining centuries of tradition that understands marriage to be for the purpose of procreation and as the keystone of society. We have a President who changed his mind from his 2008 political campaign and announced that he not only approved of gay marriage but that his administration, the Department of Justice, would not enforce the Defense of Marriage law passed by Congress.
The Obama administration has pressed hard to alter the military that went from “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” under the Clinton administration, to the present status that sees no problem in the close living conditions under which heterosexual and homosexual troops must live and work together. This was always regarded as a problem of unit cohesion in the long years leading up to the 1990s and it likely still is. In a similar fashion, the infusion of women into combat units poses problems that the military understandably avoided for most of the last two hundred and twenty-eight years of the nation’s history.
The passage of Obamacare has posed significant problems for religious groups that oppose abortion and related practices. It has particularly affected Catholic institutions and, most recently, the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of nuns who do not want to signal any concurrence with the law as it is written. The Supreme Court has granted that some respite, but their issue and others will surely have to be addressed by the Court at some point.
In Massachusetts, a homosexual legal group has filed papers to force a Catholic school to hire a man who is “married” to another man. As reported by MassResistance.org, “Back in July, Matthew Barrett of Dorchester applied for a job as the food service director at Fontbonne Academy, a Roman Catholic girls’ high school in Milton, Mass, and was subsequently offered the job. When he filled out a pre-employment form listing his ‘husband’ as an emergency contact the school told him that ‘the Catholic religion doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. We cannot hire you.’”
“Barratt claimed to be shocked by the school’s action,” noted MassResistance, “But it appears that he was purposefully dishonest. He told the Boston Globe that he was raised a Catholic and that he was informed by school officials during the interview process that employees are expected to follow Catholic doctrine. However, he did not tell the school that he was openly involved with homosexual behavior and was in a ‘gay marriage.’”
MassResistance regards the case as “the beginning of the homosexual movement’s legal assault on conservative churches, particularly Catholic, that have steadfastly refused to modify their religious convictions and comply with the homosexual movement’s demands on society. Up until now they’ve been largely left alone. But that is about to change.”
As the Boston Globe noted, “Barrett’s complaint, which may be the first of its kind in the country, comes at a time when religion-based schools in the increasing number of states where gay marriage is legal have been scrutinizing hiring and firing practices to ensure they conform with the pillars of their faiths”
“School administrators,” the Globe reported, “have been fired from Catholic schools and universities in Arkansas, California, New York, and Washington, among other states, after marrying their same-sex partners or announcing plans to do so.”
Bennett Klein, the lawyer for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination, asserts that “Our laws carefully balance the important values of religious liberty and non-discrimination. When Fontbonne Academy fired Matt from a job that has nothing to do with religion, they came down on the wrong side of the law.” It has everything to do with the free practice of religion.
“We’re seeing religion-affiliated entities more and more trying to push the line toward discriminating against gay, lesbian, and transgendered people,” said Klein.
No, it is the homosexuals who are pushing the line against religious groups who believe that their belief in God and their faith precludes the destruction of the construct of marriage is a sin against mankind and society.
It is 3% of the population demanding that 97% toss aside their faith and their values to accommodate the aberration called homosexuality. And, yes, it is an aberration because homosexuality cannot be interpreted as “normal” in any species.
MassResistance correctly says “This is madness and should not have any legal leg to stand on.”
If the homosexual assault on values and practices that have existed for centuries in the Catholic Church and in other religious faiths succeeds, the whole of our society will suffer for it. The Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion—murder—has resulted in the deaths of millions of unborn children who had a right to life.
Now, in Massachusetts and other States where same-sex marriage is deemed to be legal, the whole of the nation’s defense of marriage is under assault.
Two Alabama men have been charged with imprisoning and filming their sexual abuse of a minor for use in child pornography made with the son of one of the accused. Domestic partners Charles Dunnavant and Carl Herold face a litany of charges ranging from sexual torture and sodomy to exposing a person to an STD and child pornography production. The young boy, only nine-years-old, was held hostage in the Huntsville house of horrors for eight months, during which he was sexually assaulted, abused, sodomized and exposed to an STD by both men while a camera caught all the depraved details, according to a court filing cited by WHNT. . . . ‘They held the child captive for eight months and there are no standards, taboos or lines this defendant and his co-defendant hesitated to cross,’ Huntsville Police Department investigator Chad Smith testified in court Monday, according to WHNT.
Dunnavant lived with Herold in Huntsville. . . . Dunnavant was arrested at a family home in Lincoln County, Tenn., Friday investigators said. During a hearing Monday seeking to raise Dunnavant’s bond from $276,000 cash-only to $1 million cash-only, Huntsville Police Department investigator Chad Smith testified he was contacted by the FBI in early November about the possibility of a child sex victim in Huntsville. Smith said investigators came across numerous photos depicting sexual torture involving a child.
This has no ramifications or significance outside Alabama. However, if somebody says something that offends gay people . . .
Hyping the absurd Duck Dynasty controversy, Chad Griffin of the gay-rights lobby Human Rights Campaign said this: “Phil Robertson’s remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations. We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful.”
Got that? It is “incredibly harmful” even to “suggest” that individuals are capable of rational action. No, according to “scientific finding,” we are told, sexual behavior is biologically determined, utterly beyond our control, and our sexual preferences are so hard-wired and overpowering that incredible harm will result if we attempt to conform our actions to moral ideals or social norms.
Ideas Have Consequences, as Richard Weaver once famously observed, and this idea — what I’ve called the “Desire Is Destiny” view of sexuality — has consequences far beyond the narrow and selfish purposes of HRC’s Chad Griffin, who is interested only in fundraising, political power and his own $360,000 annual pay.
Chad Griffin is not some idealistic humanitarian, you see. He’s a highly paid professional activist, a full-time anger merchant who oversees an organization whose top dozen officials, himself included, rake off a combined $2.56 million a year. Most people don’t understand that there is a sort of political industry at work — Gay, Inc. — and there are many hundreds of people who earn their livings from various gay advocacy groups, not to mention other similar gigs, e.g., “Queer Theory” professors at universities.
All these people wake up every morning and go to work where they spend the entire day laboring to destroy morality in America. Given the enormous resources and manpower devoted to this project, we certainly ought not be surprised by their successes.
With this I could rest my case against the degenerate moonbats comprising the federal kakistocracy:
President Barack Obama issued a statement [Tuesday] congratulating Hawaii for legalizing same-sex marriage, a move he said “exemplifies the values we hold dear as a nation.”
Imagine explaining to the heroes who lost their lives through the generations in defense of America that this is what they died for:
Homosexual marriage does more than corrode the concept of matrimony, thereby undermining the family, which is the keystone of civilization. With homosexual marriage comes homosexual adoption. With homosexual adoption comes this and this and this.
Obama himself — the very personification of left-wing radicalism — officially opposed homosexual marriage until only last year. He was insincere, of course, but knew that the American public would not have tolerated a president opposed to the sanctity of marriage.
That gives an idea of how quickly the Left is destroying the moral fiber that unlike sodomy really does define us as a nation.
Having a married mom and dad is better for children, according to a Canadian study that, among other things, finds “daughters of gay parents displaying dramatically low graduation rates.” Fortunately, despite all the noise about gay marriage, most gay people have zero interest in raising children and, because gay sex obviously doesn’t produce offspring, very few gay people ever procreate.
Rejection of common sense biological and evolutionary observations are much in vogue among the social engineers and their activist counterparts. But it bears repeating — yet again — that wishing something were so, because in your mind a just world would make it so, does not, in fact, replace what is. And yet it is we who are labeled anti-science — albeit by those whose idea of science is the politicized kind that can be “settled” and based around contemporary consensus when empirical data doesn’t fall their way.
We are descending into a new Dark Ages of mystic belief, where socialized medicine is fiscally responsible, where illegal immigrants have more rights than do American citizens, where sodomy is normal and people who don’t regularly engage in sodomy are considered weird.
This may be the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in my life.
On Friday I mistakenly urged people to buy Barilla products, after owner Guido Barilla appeared to stand up for decency by refusing to comply with militant deviants who demand that commercials push their propaganda by featuring depraved homosexual “families.” But now it appears that the Gay Mafia has made him an offer he could not refuse. These 43 seconds of horror emblemize the sinking of a civilization into the sewer:
The “evolution of the family” means good-bye to that corny old paradigm of mother, father, and the children they produce. Now it means pairs (and eventually larger groups) of sodomites acquiring other people’s children so as to raise them in their corrupt, unholy, and exceedingly unhealthy lifestyle — and often so as to exploit them as sex slaves (e.g., see here, here, andhere).
No doubt the family will continue to evolve until children are created from clones. At that point our grotesquely depraved ruling class will be able to do away with traditional families altogether.
What do these freaks do to people like Barilla to make them grovel in such abject terror?
Needless to say, the buycott is now a boycott. Get ready to field astonished questions from your kids regarding why the “families” slurping spaghetti in the TV commercials have two daddies and no mommies.
On tips from Jim72, Matt L, Spicy Meatball, and DJ.
Our left-wing rulers have crossed the Rubicon into pure evil by advancing homosexual adoption, with easily foreseeable results (e.g., here, here, and here). But liberal tolerance doesn’t extend to everyone. Progressive officials weed out parents with conservative values who might not participate in their depraved social engineering schemes:
A video has been uncovered of Massachusetts officials promising to weed out foster parents with conservative values who would only “tolerate” a youth’s gender confusion and not endorse it.
Predictably, now that they have “tolerance,” it is no longer enough. Adoptive parents are required to be the sort who will use child rearing as an opportunity to actively advance the homosexual agenda.
The video was captured by Janet Aldrich of Catch of the Day Video News and featured by political activist Amy Contrada, who researches family issues through the non-profit Massachusetts-based group Mass Resistance organization.
In a new report, Contrada wrote: “It’s now official policy in Massachusetts. Adults holding traditional values will no longer be allowed to adopt or be foster parents.”
Contrada said the video is of a Boston Bar Association forum with the state Department of Children and Families and the state agency on homosexual youth.
You read that correctly. Massachusetts has a state agency devoted to promoting sexual deviancy among children.
“The DFC speakers confirmed that they are ‘weeding out’ adoptive and foster parents who are not willing to wholly accept and support LGBT (lesbian, “gay,” bisexual, or transgender) self-identification by a child in their care,” she wrote.
That is, any parents who are not barking moonbats devoted to the Left’s grotesque sexual agenda.
The sexual molestation that inevitably results (see here, here, and here) is hardly the only reason that the liberal push for more homosexual adoption is morally abhorrent. How can it be called decent to put children into situations like this?
The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl … defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young.
Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy.
[Adoptive guardians] Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel warn that children with gender identity disorder forced to postpone transitioning could face a higher risk of suicide.
Whereas if they are freakified through grotesque medical practices best left on the Island of Doctor Moreau, they live happily ever after. Just ask Nancy Verhelst. No wait, you can’t; she had herself put out of her misery like deformed dog.
Thomas’s transition into a make-pretend girl began at age eight. His guardians are inflicting hormone suppressants to prevent him from developing a male voice, broad shoulders, and facial hair. If this doesn’t qualify as child abuse, the statutes need to be rewritten.
Whatever the motivations involved in this particular situation, given the pathological fear and hatred of males that often characterize women who base their identities on being lesbians, situations like this are an inevitable consequence of homosexual adoption and the bizarre moonbat notion that a person’s sex can be altered. The progressive ruling class is dragging the rest of society down a path that cannot lead to anything healthy.
The purpose here is less to come to their defense and more to thumb his nose at Putin. How far our relationship with Russia has fallen. Yes, the “reset” was a reset to complete animosity, and Russia not the only country with whom Obama has harmed relationships.
In a display of utter political incoherence, President Obama plans to meet with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocates in Russia while visiting the Kremlin, even as he attempts to lobby Russian President Vladimir Putin for support on an international military action against Syria. Russian opposition to American intervention in Syria has been a major factor in Obama’s decision to seek approval from Congress for military action in Syria. On Saturday, Obama blasted the UN Security Council, a veiled reference to Russia, by calling it “completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold [Syrian President Bashar] Assad accountable.”
While in Moscow, Obama plans to meet with human rights activists Lev Ponomarev and Lyudmila Alexeyeva, legal aid non-governmental-organization director Pavel Chikov, and Coming Out.
Russia and the United States have been at odds over myriad issues over the past few months, including Russia’s grant of asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowden, Russia’s law against “gay propaganda,” and Russia’s Middle Eastern policy in support of Iran and Syria.
Few are willing to admit the truth, namely that our cultural elite have abandoned the truth — but that is putting it too mildly.
Our cultural elite, of which the editors of the Washington Post andSupreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg are members, have not only abandoned the truth, but have declared war on truth, and have dedicated themselves to the advancement of falsehood.
Whether or not you follow my reading recommendations, the bottom line is this: Good luck with this “secular conservatism” thing.
It ain’t gonna work, and if the history of the past 10 years or so haven’t convinced you that embracing secularism is doom for conservatism — and, ultimately, for the American republic — I’m sure the next 10 years will, but by then there will be nothing left worth conserving. And we’re probably doomed already.
Paul Weyrich — he totally saw it. A nation that would let President Clinton lie his way through the Lewinsky scandal, and accept all those flimsy rationalizations in his defense . . . Doomed.
There was a sort of post-9/11 bubble of Republican popularity that lasted four or five years, but by 2006, that was completely gone. Then in 2008 somehow, that backstabbing crapweasel John McCain got the Republican nomination and . . . Doomed.
Well, the Tea Party uprising of 2009-2010 was encouraging, but then 2012 came along and, once again . . . Doomed.
How are you feeling about 2014, Republicans? What about 2016?
Basically, the enemy got inside the perimeter. The bombardment of liberal propaganda convinced both the Republican Party elite and leading figures of the conservative intelligentsia that all those hillbilly Bible-thumpers were, on balance, a detriment to the GOP’s political prospects, so shut up, Sarah Palin, shut up Michele Bachmann, shut upRick Santorum and anyone else who doesn’t applaud gay marriage as enthusiastically as Rachel Maddow and Andrew Sullivan.
Way to go, Republican elite! You saved your reputation as sophisticated, tolerant, enlightened intellectuals and you are . . . Doomed.
The revolutionary turning point is now in your rear-view mirror, and you’re all Vichy Republicans, negotiating with the radical Left the terms of your collaboration with their progressive agenda. In November 2008,I explained where we were heading:
The Lawrence ruling was the culmination of what Justice Antonin Scalia called “a 17-year crusade” to overturn the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision (which had upheld Georgia’s sodomy statute) and, as Scalia noted in his dissent, the Court’s “emerging awareness” argument was a disingenuous way to avoid actually declaring a “fundamental right” to sodomy. The legal effect was the same, however, and Lawrence was repeatedly cited in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision five months later mandating the legalization of gay marriage in that state. . . .
Gay activists do not construe their “rights” in terms of liberty, but in terms of radical and absolute equality. They insist that same-sex relationships are identical to — entirely analogous to and fungible with — traditional marriage.
Common sense resists this assertion, perceiving something fundamentally false in the gay marriage argument. Yet it seems common-sense resistance can only be justified by resort to religious faith, through the understanding that men are “endowed by their Creator” with rights. Eliminate the Creator from discussion, and it becomes impossible to refute the activists’ indignant demand for equality. . . .
You could read the whole thing — if you’re an ignorant hillbilly Bible-thumper like Justice Antonin Scalia. Perhaps you could also confront the reality that we have weighed anchor, sailed off into uncharted waters without a compass, and are now badly adrift in those regions of the ancient maps marked “Here Be Dragons.”
The Lawrence decision stopped just short of declaring a “fundamental right” to sodomy, but they might as well have gone all the way (if you’ll pardon the phrase) because we see how Justice Kennedy struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act as though no law prior to the “emerging awareness” had any validity at all. In 2003, the Supreme Court decreed that Texas had no authority to prohibit sodomy. Ten years later, the Supreme Court decreed that Congress itself could not deny recognition to same-sex marriage, and anyone shocked by the hasty destruction of what Chief Justice Warren Burger called “millennia of moral teaching” — well, shut up, haters.
This blog post is written to charitably help the followers of an heathenish cult calling itself “church of England” (small “c” is mine) to separate themselves from it before their day comes, because the punishment might well be horrible and eternal.
The way the head of the so-called “c of E” disregards the basics of Christianity is such that no one can claim anymore to believe in Christian principles and in this man’s rambling at the same time.
When the leader of a cult known for changing his mind about almost everything under the sun (say: divorce, priestettes, and now bishopettes) arrives to the point of saying, as if it was a matter of course, that “society has evolving views on sexuality” without a hint of condemnation of the thus changing view (and note he does not say “changing views”, he says “evolving views”) you know to him either God doesn’t “evolve”, but society does, or the Commandments themselves must “evolve”. When he says the opposition to so-called “same-sex marriages” (not the sodomy in itself, of course! God forbid! How “homophobic”!) is seen by some as “akin to racism” without openly attacking their sodomitical prejudices, you know he is preparing to a more or less open volte-face. When he says he is against same-sex so-called marriage butcondemns as homophobic the Christian society of the past, you know he has already sold himself to the enemy.
We complain about our (admittedly: disgraceful) Pope bishop of Rome, but we as Catholic have the saving grace of a doctrinal structure no Pope can change. The Proddies don’t think that way. Their “evolving” apparently includes the sixth and the ninth commandment, which can be deprived of any meaning simply because they “must face” that society has “evolved”.
Heavens, what a buffoon. And this would be a Christian? Most Muslims must be far more Christian than this chap, because they at least share many of the norms of traditional Christian morality without even believing that Christ is God; whilst Welby claims to believe that Christ is God, and denies Him to adore the golden calf of popular opinion and “evolving views on sexuality”.
Seriously. These people aren’t even Christians anymore. They are jokers in fancy dress. They can’t even remember the basics. They consider approval of perversion an “evolution”.
How little are the salvation chances of people going to the grave identifying themselves with such views? How many of them already share these views, and how many more will do so in future?
Anglicanism has become a heathenish cult of man with no resemblance anymore to any Christian thinking worthy of the name. What a bunch of clowns, what a cartoon “religion”.
Abandon them as long as you can, or die in communion with them at your peril.
The “Don’t Ask Bradley Manning, Don’t Tell Chelsea Manning” policy was wiped out by a stroke of Obama’s pen, and the Supreme Court has voided the Defense of Marriage Act, so that the “emerging awareness” doctrine articulated by Justice Kennedy in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling has advanced to the point that, with the de facto federal imposition of gay marriage (despite constitutional amendments to the contrary in more than 30 states) we are now a judicial hop, skip and jump from a Supreme Court decision mandating compulsory sodomy.
OK, maybe that was a bit of hyperbole, but (a) Slate does these cheap stunts daily, and (b) clearly we have drifted off into that part of the map marked “Here Be Dragons” and there’s no telling what’s next.
The Constitution is now whatever liberals say it is.
At times it seems that America has lost its mind, or at least that the concept of “rights” as our Founders understood and defined them is slipping away. RS McCain reports that the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that everyone in New Mexico must do anything that Gay couples looking to get married say because human rights you Homphobe!
Gosh, it seems like just a few years ago that allegedly serious people were warning about how the “christofascist godbags” of the Religious Right were an existential threat to freedom in America, and if you disagreed with these allegedly serious people, you were just a hateful bigot.
New Mexico’s Supreme Court rules that people must set aside their religion in order to avoid creating the slightest inconvenience for gay people. . . . No, by all means, let’s use the power of the state to reach as deeply as possible into people’s lives instead of just telling the gay couple to “Look online for ten minutes and find someone else.”
Just how they reached such a fundamentally flawed decision is frankly, inexplicable. Can the government now FORCE a business to provides goods or services against their will? Apparently the Leftists on that court think so. It is the price of citizenship apparently!
On Thursday, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that religious wedding photographers could be forced to photograph same-sex weddings. “When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA] in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,” the court ruled unanimously.
The court said that Elaine Huguenin, the photographer, had discriminated against gay customers for not photographing their weddings, even though she had said she would be happy to take their pictures in different contexts. The court also refused any differentiation whatsoever between homosexual and heterosexual conduct under the law, despite the fact that same-sex marriage is not licensed in the state of New Mexico. Justice Edward Chavez wrote, “The difficulty in distinguishing between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation discrimination is that people may base their judgment about an individual’s sexual orientation on the individual’s conduct. To allow discrimination based on conduct so closely correlated with sexual orientation would severely undermine the purpose of the NMHRA.” In other words, orientation and conduct are so intertwined that to discriminate against activity would be to discriminate against the person — an odd line of logic, given that it would then follow that discriminating against religious activity would constitute discrimination on the basis of religion, making the court’s logic self-defeating.
Justice Richard Bosson wrote, in concurrence, that the Huguenins are “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.” He concluded, “The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.” That “compromise,” he wrote, “is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.”
Talk about making it up as you go along! And note the word “tolerance”. How odd that the Gay couples must have, as in must have or else, “tolerance” but what of the “tolerance” for the wedding photographer? I guess some tolerance is more equal than others? Since when the Leftist definition of tolerance become part of our Constitution? I suppose, as McCain puts it, our moral superiors are to decide our every action now
Do you see what this is really about? If not, let me tell you that this is really about, “We, who are Your Moral Superiors, have authority to dictate your behavior, your words and, indeed, your thoughts.”
The language of “rights” is not about freedom, but rather power.
As I have said before, Gay marriage is a legitimate issue to debate, and, I think for states to decide. But the Gay activists and other Leftists will not let that happen. They are using this issue, as they have used many others, not to liberate, or to achieve equality of opportunity, but to create their version of what America ought to be. And understand me when I tell you that in their version of America, there will be no rights, only Leftist Totalitarianism! the Left’s thirst for power, TOTAL power, can never be slaked.
If militant perverts can’t subject children to a blasphemous and illegal parody of a wedding, then no one can have a wedding. That’s the rule at Cedar Point:
An amusement park in Ohio is canceling a wedding contest after a gay couple organized a protest against the promotion because it excluded same-sex couples.
Cedar Point amusement park initially limited the contest to male and female couples because it said state law doesn’t allow gay couples to legally marry in Ohio. A spokesman says the park decided to cancel the event once it started to take on political undertones, reported the Sandusky Register.
It took on “political overtones” when homosexual militants set up their menacing caterwauling.
Congrats, Pink Nazis. Now that the straights have had their marriage fun ruined, you can head on back to the bathhouse to plan the next attack.
Cedar Point was attempting to avoid conflict by canceling the event, but this won’t work unless we are willing to cancel everything. The LGBT “community” will always find another excuse to start a conflict. Bullies are never satisfied so long as no one stands up to them. Also, moonbattery is a totalitarian ideology. There is no corner of existence where they will just leave us alone. Everyone must bend to their will; everything must be defiled.
KATHLEEN KANE, thePennsylvania Attorney General, was in the news last week for declaring that she would not defend the 1996 state marriage law that bans same-sex unions. Kane made her announcement at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, a sort of theme park for equality that is the ideal setting for prominent Democrats to accuse the nation of bigotry. Kane said she would not defend the 1996 state law in court because it was “wholly unconstitutional,” never mind that violating her oath and usurping the powers of the legislature are unconstitutional. Judging from her reported statement, Kane is not a brilliant orator. She said: (Continued)
Bill and Hillary Clinton praised the Supreme Court’s reversal of a key provision in the Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday, calling the 1996 law “discrimination.”
“By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union,” the Clintons said in a statement posted on the Clinton Foundation website. “We are also encouraged that marriage equality may soon return to California.”
The former president and his wife, the former secretary of state, concluded, “We applaud the hard work of the advocates who have fought so relentlessly for this day, and congratulate Edie Windsor on her historic victory.”
Left unmentioned was the fact that Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law while president. The 1996 Clinton-Gore ticket ran ads on Christian radio stations taking credit for the legislation, which prevented federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
The Defense of Marriage Act also allowed states to withhold recognition of gay marriages that were legal in other states. Senate Democrats voted 32 to 14 in favor. House Democrats supported it by a margin of a margin of 188 to 65.
Liberal stalwarts Joe Biden, Paul Wellstone and Barbara Milkulski were among the Democratic “yes” votes.
Democratic strategist Robert Shrum has said that Clinton urged John Kerry to support state-level gay marriage bans during the 2004 presidential campaign. Clinton has denied the charge.
Hillary Clinton also supported DOMA as a Democratic senator from New York. Even as she argued against a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, she described marriage as “not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” She cited her own troubled marriage with Bill as a reason for that belief.
Clinton then invoked “the fundamental bedrock principle that [marriage] exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”
Early in her presidential campaign, Clinton insisted to the YearlyKos convention that “DOMA served a very useful purpose.”
Both Clintons now favor gay marriage. Hillary Clinton is considered the frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.
Dissenting from this morning’s opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back.
In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage “enemies of the human race.”
But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “dis- parage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
Scalia says that the court’s holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.
It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.
In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.
But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.
21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
Romans 1:28 KJV
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
And finally Paul says this in Romans 1:32:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
President Obama told attendees at a LGBT Pride Month celebration that the U.S. needs to get marriage equality “done now,” but that he believed the nation had reached a “turning point” on gay rights.
“We’re not going to have to wait that long,” Obama said. “From Minnesota to Maryland, from the U.S. Senate to the NBA, it’s clear we’ve reached a turning point.”
The president said that progress could be traced “from the courage of those who stood up.”
“Eventually america gets it right. that doesn’t mean we can be patient,” Obama said. “We know from our own history that change happens because we push it to.”
The president ticked off a number of accomplishments benefiting the gay community during his first term, including ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and expanding protections for HIV-positive individuals under his signature health care plan. He also urged the Senate to pass bipartisan legislation restricting workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.
At last some honesty from a moonbat. We all know that the Left is not on the level with its sudden urgent concern that homosexuals have their sexual liaisons sanctified by the government as legitimate marriages. Lesbian journalist Masha Gessen, as quoted by Micah Clark, spells out what they are actually up to:
“It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should have the right to marry [each other], but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … (F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
“The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
“I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
To “fundamentally transform,” as Obama put it regarding his plans for America, is to destroy.
Masha Gessen. Lesbians rarely look like Howard Stern’s fantasies.
Churches will be pressured into blessing gay marriages.
The end point of liberalism is a coercive secular state in which the religious have no meaningful rights. American church leaders are kidding themselves if they think the gay-marriage juggernaut is going to stop at civil marriage. It won’t. It will quickly travel past court houses to churches, demanding that all religions bless gay marriages.
Denmark casts a shadow of this future, where the gay-marriage juggernaut has smashed through church doors. Last year the country’s parliament passed a law requiring all Lutheran churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. “I think it’s very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married,” said Manu Sareen, Denmark’s minister for gender equality. Reluctant bishops have to supply ministers to satisfy the right whether they like it or not.
Iceland and Sweden have similar arrangements. Since many of the bishops are in the tank for gay marriage anyways and since these churches are “state” churches, this pressure generates little news. But it is instructive nonetheless. Where gay marriage exists, religious freedom gradually disappears, to the point where ministers have to choose between serving as secularism’s stooges or facing societal oblivion.
In America, this pressure will take the form of “discriminatory” churches losing government grants, permits, and participation in programs. It will be the death of religious freedom by a thousand little cuts here and there: canceled speeches of religious figures at state universities, lost HHS grants, the refusal of city governments to recognize churches that don’t permit gay marriages, “hate crime” legislation that extends to opposition to gay marriage, and so on. All of this will have the effect of pressuring churches into blessing gay marriages. A law forcing priests and ministers to preside at gay marriages won’t need to be passed; the invisible law of indirect governmental pressure will do the trick.
During last year’s campaign, Obama said that religions will remain free to determine their own “sacraments.” Shouldn’t that go without saying? The very fact that Obama made such a declaration should scare people. Whenever a pol says “I won’t do [fill in the blank],” it usually means that very activity is on his mind. While he can’t determine the sacraments for religions, Obama will try and marginalize those religions that don’t determine the sacraments in a manner he considers “nondiscriminatory.”
Obama’s “respect” for these religions is on par with his respect for the policies of the Boy Scouts. “I think that my attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life,” said Obama when calling on the Boy Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters. Notice Obama’s phrase: every institution and walk of life. Surely in time that will include churches.
But for now, Obama thinks the religious should feel grateful to him that he is not busting down church doors and forcibly injecting them with contraceptives or requiring them to preside at gay weddings. That in his mind is the sum total of religious freedom. And yet even that little space can be crowded in on through laws that allow government to reward secularized religions and shun traditional ones.
The goal of the gay-marriage juggernaut is to make Christians pariahs, as irrelevant to public life as racists. It doesn’t have to pass a Denmark-style law to force churches to conduct gay marriages; it can achieve the same end through punitive political correctness.
On ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos thought it appropriate to ask Cardinal Timothy Dolan, albeit in a roundabout and implicit fashion, if Catholicism could accept gay marriage for people who feel “unwelcome” in the Church: “What do you say to a gay couple that loves God and the Church, but also love each other and want to raise a family in faith?” It would have been nice to see Dolan challenge the insidious premise of the question by saying something like: So, George, you are saying that unless the Church loves the sin it can’t love the sinner?
Instead, Dolan seemed to concede the media narrative about the Church as hateful — “We have to do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people. I admit, we haven’t been too good at that” — while gingerly trying to uphold the Church’s teaching on marriage. His attempt at appeasement didn’t work. Gay activists pounced on him anyways, generating headlines such as “Cardinal Dolan Demeans Gay Relationships As He Says Church Should Be More Welcoming to Gays.”
The gay-marriage juggernaut only speeds up at the sight of such gestures, seeing civil marriage as just one stop on a longer road to a secularist state in which religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular fall silent and compliant out of fear if not law.
Photo: UPI (Supporters of Illinois’ “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act,” Jan. 2, 2013)
Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
Others have already pointed out the absurdity that gay marriage is becoming a right in places where plastic bags and large sodas are becoming against the law. This sort of next wave civil rights step is only an expansion of freedom if you aren’t paying attention.All the arguments over the differences between civil unions and marriage are largely meaningless. Once gay marriage is recognized, then marriage becomes nothing more than a civil union. The real casualty is the destruction of the word “marriage”, but the left is adept as destroying language and replacing meaningful words with meaningless words.
There was no word in Newspeak for freedom. We can look forward to an English language in which there is no word for marriage. And what does freedom mean anyway in a country where most things are banned, but we are constantly throwing holidays to celebrate how free we are?
But if marriage is no longer refers to a natural social institution, but now means a civil union recognized by the state, then why stop at two? Gay rights advocates insist that there is some magic difference between polygamy and gay marriage. There isn’t any difference except the number. And if we’re not going to be bound by any antiquated notion that marriage is an organic institution between man and woman, then why should we be bound by mere number?
Surely in our enlightened age and time, it can be possible for large groups of consenting adults to tie their confusing knots together in any number from 2 to 2,000.
True marriage equality would completely open up the concept. But it’s not actually equality that we’re talking about. It’s someone’s idea of the social good. And the social good is served by gay marriage, but not by polygamy.
The question is whose social good is it?
Equality and justice are words that the left uses to cloud the question of who advocates the causes and who benefits from them. Who decides that the cause of justice and equality is served by limiting marriage to two gay men, rather than four gay men, three bisexual men, two women and a giraffe?
The rhetoric of equality asserts a just cause while overlooking the social good. Rights are demanded. The demand is absolute and the logic for it remains left behind in a desk drawer on the wrong side of the table. Instead there are calls for empathy. “If you only knew a gay couple.” Hysterical condemnations. “I’m pretty sure you’re the devil”, one recent email to me began. And a whole lot of vague promises about the good things that will follow once we’re all paying for it.
We aren’t truly moving toward anarchy or some libertarian order, but a calculated form of repression in which shrill demands substitute for legal guidelines and those who scream the loudest get the most rights.
The new freedoms are largely random and chaotic. Donate enough money to the right people while helping out the left and a special addition to the marriage split-level house will be carved out for you. Why? Because there will be a lot of yelling. Naturally. And if the polygamists yell loudly enough and donate enough money, they’ll get their own marriage expansion as well because that is how things work now.
There is no longer a fixed notion of rights. The trappings of equality and angry causes are hollow. The legal doctrine on which courts make their decisions are targets in search of arrows, emotions hunting around for precedents to wrap them in. These decisions are not rational, but rather rationalizations. Their only anchor is a new role for government in protecting any group that is officially marginalized.
The old Bill of Rights extended rights irrespective of group membership. The new one wipes out universal rights and replaces them with particular privileges. Entire amendments may sink beneath the waves, but a few groups get comfortable deck chairs on the Titanic.
Why is one group protected rather than another? Why do gay activists get a government-bonded right, complete with Federal enforcement, while polygamy is outlawed? The only answers are rationalizations. With morality sinking fast and few common values that the people in charge will accept, there is no longer a common value system to rely on.
Progressive morality is constantly being reshaped in tune to the whims of the left. It can’t be relied upon, because it isn’t there. The only thing fixed about it is the need to fight for the oppressed, which not coincidentally at all is also the shaky civil rights era legal doctrine on which the whole modern house of cards rests.
Since the nature of oppression and the identification of oppressed groups is open for debate, the legal doctrine means nothing. Every Democratic presidential candidate was against gay marriage in 2008 and for it now. What changed? Nothing, except the money changing hands and sitcoms about gay couples. And the latter is what it comes down to. Instead of church and state, we are stuck with sitcom and state where the existence of a television comedy is a reflection of national values.
And what happens when one of the burgeoning shows about polygamous marriages becomes a big hit? Then we’ll have no choice but to ratify polygamous marriage equality because that’s the new national values system and the television ratings prove that everyone is clearly down with it.
Once fixed rights made way for identity politics, we traded legal guarantees of freedom for government oversight of a confusing caste system in which some people have more rights than others based on the amount of rights they claim not to have, but everyone has fewer rights than they did before because rights are now arbitrary and the arbitrators work for the government.
Identity politics made rights competitive. The only way to win is to play. And the only way to play is to claim oppression. And if you don’t do a good job of it, good luck getting a good spot in the diversity quotas for college, business and government. But it has also made rights meaningless.
The new slogan is that gun control should be enacted because the former Congresswoman Giffords “deserves a vote”. Giffords already has a vote. So do millions of gun owners. That’s how it works. But votes are no longer weighed equally. The oppressed, even by a random shooting spree, get more votes than others, so long as their oppression is officially recognized and endorsed. The Giffords Vote is supposed to not only trump millions of actual votes, but also the Second Amendment.
And why not? Gay marriage lost in multiple referendums, but those results were set aside by Federal judges for being oppressive. The same thing happened with illegal aliens. Now everyone is evolving on those issues. After all, no one wants to be the bad mean oppressor. And so the actual votes are trumped by the vote of the oppressed and actual rights make way for special privileges.
The grants of new rights are oppressive because there are no longer any fixed boundaries of rights. Instead gay rights compels wedding photographers, cake shops and even churches to cater to gay weddings regardless of their own moral values. Religious freedom, which is in the Constitution, has to take a seat at the back of the bus to the new rights, which aren’t.
There is no system for keeping rights from colliding with or overrunning one another. The only
governing legal mandate is preventing oppression and that means government arbitrators deciding who is screaming, “Help, help, I’m being repressed!” the loudest and with the most sincerity.
A system in which the authorities grant rights based on who can best make the case to them that their rights have been taken away is a bad idea. It’s an especially bad idea in a system like ours which is rapidly sliding in a direction in which the authorities are the sole arbiters of who should have any rights at all. If your oppressed status depends on your oppressors determining whether you are truly oppressed, then the only people who will have rights are those people whose rights the oppressors have not taken away by certifying them as oppressed.
It would be a dreadful simplification to call this lunatic state of affairs Orwellian or even Machiavellian. It makes even Kafka’s worlds seem positively stodgy by comparison. It is a trial where the only people to be found not guilty are those who already been convicted. It’s a system that favors the people who claim to be dispossessed by the system. It is an absurd self-negation that exists as a mathematical impossibility and a living satire.
Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
The only question worth asking about gay marriage is whether anyone on the left would care about this crusade if it didn’t come with the privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.
Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the
deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.
The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.
The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country– it produces its next generation.
The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.
Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.
There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.
The left hasn’t gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.
You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.
Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.
The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.
Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.
In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.
The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.
Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction.
Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women’s clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all.
The left’s deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.
Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you change ‘rose’ to mean anything that sticks out of the ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.
The left’s social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.
Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.
As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell’s Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left’s deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.
The left’s greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.
To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.
The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part
of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.
The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.
That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.
The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of identity.
Don’t like having to explain to your six-year-old why two men are kissing across the front page of the newspaper? That’s just too bad, according to the Denver Post, which recently ran a picture of Colorado House Speaker Mark Ferrandino smooching sex partner Greg Wertsch to celebrate the passage of yet another bill promoting homosexuality:
The Post ran that photo as its main front-page picture, taking up 20-25 percent of the front page.
It isn’t that media apparatchiks like Director of Newsroom Operations Linda Shapley don’t care what readers think. They just don’t care what readers who aren’t on board with the liberal agenda think.
The headline on her column first read: “Mark Ferrandino kiss photo shows truth, no matter how objectionable.” But that offended the pro-gay lobby, so the explanation of the offense … offended. The new headline became “Picture of Mark Ferrandino kissing partner shows the truth, even if it offends some.”
Sexual deviancy is the “truth,” according to the depraved ideology of our ruling class.
Unsurprisingly, the accompanying story aggressively promoted the homosexual agenda:
The story included seven different responses to the bill passing. Pro-civil union backers outnumbered opponents 6-1. The story went on to mention “milestones in the gay movement” including “the Stonewall riots, Harvey Milk’s assassination.” Most of the article read like an LGBT press release.
Only a year ago, not even Barack Hussein or Shrillary Rotten supported the disgusting and blasphemous travesty of homosexual “marriage.” Now it seems likely to soon become the law of the land. Propaganda blitzes work.
Liberals can be counted on to continue using their control of the media to push the envelope as far as they can, even after America has been fundamentally transformed into a degenerate culture that would make any decent person sick.
Unlike the Denver Post, this is a family-friendly news source.
One of the [Minnesota] Legislature’s most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage says homosexuality is a choice and form of sexual addiction.
“It’s an unhealthy, sexual addiction,” state Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen said Wednesday.
The Glencoe Republican said he has a friend who ran a sexual addiction clinic. “He helped many homosexuals and other people come out of the lifestyle.”
Gruenhagen made the statements after advocates unveiled their proposal to legalize same-sex marriage, which would make Minnesota among nearly a dozen states that allow gays and lesbians to wed.
“When we talk about gay marriage, we are not talking about an immutable characteristic, like the color of your skin.” Gruenhagen said. Referencing a decade- old genome study, he added: “There is no gay gene. The concept that there is a gay gene is an unscientific lie.”
I must have missed it, when did we start passing liberal blasphemy laws?
This quote from the owner is pretty awesome, “I’d rather have my kids see their dad stand up for what he believes in then to see him bow down because one person complained.” We need a lot more of that attitude in this country.
GRESHAM, Ore (KGW) — The Oregon Department of Justice is looking into a complaint that a Gresham bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage.
It started on Jan. 17 when a mother and daughter showed up at Sweet Cakes by Melissa looking for the perfect wedding cake.
“My first question is what’s the wedding date,” said owner Aaron Klein. “My next question is bride and groom’s name … the girl giggled a little bit and said it’s two brides.”
Klein apologized to the women and told them he and his wife do not make cakes for same-sex marriages. Klein said the women were disgusted and walked out.
“I believe that marriage is a religious institution ordained by God,” said Klein. “A man should leave his mother and father and cling to his wife … that to me is the beginning of marriage.”
At the advice of their attorney, the women are not speaking to the media, but they have plenty of support. Numerous people have blasted the Klein’s on the internet.
What Klein wants to make clear is that he and his wife do not hate homosexuals.
“They can buy my stuff,” said Klein. “I’ll sell them stuff … I’ll talk to them, it’s fine.”
What is not fine, according to Klein, is a marriage between people of the same sex. He will always stand by that conviction.
“I’d rather have my kids see their dad stand up for what he believes in then to see him bow down because one person complained.”
World’s Most Interesting Man Always Reads Zion’s Trumpet
Pamela Geller’s Must Read New Book
Should You Care? Let’s Ask The Give A Damn Meter!
"Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician." - General George S. Patton
Speak The Truth
Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.
And The Darkness Did Not Comprehend The Light
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Who Will Stand In The Gap?
30And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
The Midnight Watch and Warning
The Watchman and His Message
1 Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, speak to the children of your people, and say to them: ‘When I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from their territory and make him their watchman, 3 when he sees the sword coming upon the land, if he blows the trumpet and warns the people, 4 then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, if the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be on his own head. 5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But he who takes warning will save his life. 6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’
7 “So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me
Social Network Quick Links
We have had several requests to add social network links, especially Facebook, to our posts so that you can easily share them. We have added this feature. Just click on the post heading link and it will pull up the post in a seperate window where you may choose the destination. Thanks for reading The Trumpet. ZTW