Category Archives: Gay Marriage
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.
On a tip from Wilberforce.
By George Neumayr on 4.3.13 @ 6:09AM
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)
From The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/03/religious-freedoms-drip-by-dri
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.
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.
And that is what we are truly fighting against.
Starbucks No Longer Wants My Business – Because I Support Traditional Marriage. And They Won’t Get it.
From Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
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.
On a tip from Bob Roberts.
Found at American Power
Thursday, February 28, 2013
At Hot Dish Politics, “Gruenhagen: Homosexuality is a ‘sexual addiction’“:
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.”
More at that top link.
PREVIOUSLY: “Yes, Homosexuality’s a Lifestyle Choice.”
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.”
HT: Right Newz
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Josh Israel / ThinkProgress:
Jonathan Karl / ABCNEWS:
Sheryl Gay Stolberg / New York Times:
Louie Giglio, Inaugural Pastor, Criticized for Antigay Sermon
A Politically Incorrect Guide to ‘Sexual Orientation’
By Matt Barber
It’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world … ~ The Kinks
Through the secular-”progressive” looking-glass, the term “sexual orientation” has, in a few short years, evolved to accommodate an ever-expanding fruit basket of carnal appetites.
First it was “LGB” – liberal shorthand for “lesbian, gay and bisexual.” Then they added a “T” for “transgender.” That’s cross-dressing. You know, fellas like 45-year-old Clay Francis (aka, “Colleen”).
Mr. Francis enjoys macramé, long walks on the beach, wearing lady knickers and showering fully nude with 6-year-old girls.
Because it’s illegal to “discriminate based on the basis of gender identity,” and since it’s the only “tolerant” thing to do, this brave bellwether of the persecuted LGBT victim-class has secured the “civil right” for him and other men to fully expose themselves to your daughter in the locker room at Olympia, Washington’s Evergreen State College.
But slow down, Dad. According to the law, if you have a problem with Mr. Francis baring all to your baby girl, then you’re the problem. You’re a “transphobe” (“homophobia’s” evil twin sister, er, brother … whatever). Deck this sicko for terrifying your first-grader and you’re off to jail while “Colleen” is off to the “Human Rights Campaign” for a commendation as the latest victim of an “anti-LGBT hate crime.”
Rosa Parks in drag, I guess.
But to make sure they didn’t miss anyone, pooh-bahs over at Child Corruption Central added a “Q” to the “sexual orientation” mix. In case some fifth-grader in Ms. Adamsapple’s health class gets the urge to “taste the rainbow” (and I don’t mean Skittles), the catch-all term “questioning” was tacked on.
Gotta meet those recruiting quotas.
According to the “gay” activist group GLSEN, sexuality is “fluid” and “may change over time.” Unless, of course, you’re already “gay,” and then change is impossible, fixed and immutable. Like that hotel in California, “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
Nobody said it’s supposed to make sense.
Still, because “progressives” aren’t progressive unless they’re progressing toward progress, this nonsensical alphabet soup of sexual deviancy has ballooned to a marvelous “LGBTQQIAAP.”
The latest word salad in the counter-”heterosexist” war against “heteronormativity” (yes, they consider these real things) is “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, Allies, and Pansexual.”
In Canada, they’ve added “2S” which means: “Two-spirit. The visionaries and healers of aboriginal (sic) communities, the gay and lesbian shamans.”
I just can’t believe these closed-minded bigots left out members of the mistreated “BDSM” community (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism). That’s OK, I guess. Being mistreated is their whole shtick, right? Or maybe they’re covered under “P” for “pansexual.” That means, more or less, that if the mood strikes, you’ll take a roll in the hay with anyone or anything in any way imaginable (or unimaginable).
Speaking of rolls in the hay, don’t put away your alphabet soup decoder ring just yet. It looks like we’ll soon be adding another “B” to the mix.
The late “gay” activist icon Frank Kameny – a pervert before his time – endorsed the practice of bestiality a few years ago. He called sex with animals “harmless,” saying that “as long as the animal doesn’t mind – and the animal rarely does – I don’t mind, and I don’t see why anyone else should.”
So we’ve further lowered the bar from “consenting adults” to “consenting adults and hoofed mammals.” How does that work? Bestiality is OK, but “neigh” means “neigh”?
In today’s frenzied struggle for unfettered sexual license cleverly couched as “civil rights,” we shouldn’t be surprised, then, that oppressed peoples representing all form of “sexual orientation” are lining up for their slice of “equality” pie.
Yes, even, um, animal lovers. According to a recent report by Florida’s Gainesville Sun, for instance, “Lawyers representing a Marion County man accused of sexual activity with a miniature donkey have filed a motion asking a judge to declare the Florida statute banning sexual activities with animals unconstitutional.”
“Carlos R. Romero, 32 … is accused of sexual activities involving animals, a first-degree misdemeanor, after he allegedly was found in a compromising position in August with a female miniature donkey named Doodle.”
First of all, I was offended by the article’s insensitive use of the term “miniature donkey.” I believe, if I’m not mistaken, the preferred nomenclature is “little horse.”
Still, I was especially struck – though not surprised – by the legal arguments Romero’s lawyers ponied up. They claimed “that the statute infringes upon Romero’s due process rights and violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.”
“By making sexual conduct with an animal a crime, the statute demeans individuals like Defendant (Romero) by making his private sexual conduct a crime,” they wrote.
Right. The statute demeans Romero.
“The personal morals of the majority, whether based on religion or traditions, cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of their personal liberties,” the attorneys wrote.
This line of argument is directly from the homosexual activist playbook – the rationale adopted by the majority in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas case. In Lawrence, the U.S. Supreme Court manufactured, for the first time in history, a constitutional “right” for men to sodomize each other.
So why not Doodle?
In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia forecast exactly what’s happened in the decade since: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”
Once our culture decides, as a matter of course, that all morality is relative, all bets are off. Once we determine, as a matter of law, that people are entitled to special privilege because they subjectively define their identity based upon deviant sexual proclivities and behaviors, moral, legal and cultural anarchy are inevitable.
The brave new world is upon us.
Image: A Miniature Donkey, San Francisco Zoo – Children’s Zoo; author:Steven Walling; Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license
It is the iron law of “progressive” movements that having achieved their goals, they refuse to fade away. Rather than disbanding upon completion of their mission, these movements, now fully institutionalized, keep chugging along, and the farther they go, the more they resemble their sworn enemies, the rationale for their existence….
The gay rights movement, too, has been transforming itself before our very eyes. Once a movement fighting against persecution and discrimination, which is the reason why its initial demands enjoyed wide public support, it has gone from one triumph to another and won the war. Today, the issue is moot. But the gay movement has not declared victory and gone home. Central to achieving their goal is bending society to their will and forcing it to acquiesce to their agenda.
That’s where same-sex marriage comes in. It’s no mystery why it commands considerable support. After all, what can be more “American” than the idea of granting equality to a formerly persecuted group that has done nothing untoward other than being different in its sexual proclivities? Sort of like being discriminated because of the color of one’s skin (even though many black leaders, jealously guarding their highly lucrative victimhood, take strong exception to equating gay liberation with the civil rights struggle). So recognition of gay unions as legitimate marriages seems to be an eminently innocuous idea. But appearances can be deceptive. Few things are more destructive than gay marriage, a poison pill devised to corrode the very core of a healthy society — the institution of marriage.
Not a single society in the long history of mankind has ever attempted to substitute homosexual relationships for traditional marriage. Even in places where homosexuality was viewed as normal, openly practiced, and even encouraged (as in Sparta, where carnal relationship was regarded as forging an extra bond between warriors), marriage was sacrosanct and never called into question. Marriage has always been universally understood as a biological, social, and economic arrangement to bring into the world and rear the young, thus perpetuating the species. Indeed, humans took their cue from wild nature, where heterosexual family is virtually the sole organizing principle of life.
The rare exceptions only prove the rule, as do stable childless marriages held together by considerations of economic necessity or social convenience. Indeed, so central is marriage to human existence that it forms the basic building block and prototype of any society. The many forms of social organization are but permutations of the basic familial pattern; the clan, the tribe and the state are merely an extended family writ large.
Don’t believe revolutionaries when they hold forth about their intention of building paradise on earth. Actually, they would be unable to build anything even if they wanted to. Their talk about the bright future is mere lip service, because in reality, any revolution is exclusively about destruction, with very little thought given to what will happen afterward (“we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it”). But how do you go about destroying society? Where do you direct the blow so it will do the most damage? In his Theses on Feuerbach, Karl Marx provided the answer: destroy the traditional family.
True to the teachings of their prophet, socialist revolutionaries have placed the destruction of matrimony high on their list of priorities. Social upheavals have always opened the floodgates of debauchery and pornography. The socialist revolution brings about a breakdown of social conventions, with “sexual liberation” regarded as part of the overall drive for freedom. But while the rabble yearns to throw off the yoke of moral strictures to give vent to its animal passions, the revolutionary leaders see moral decay as a means of undermining the bulwark of the social structure — the family.
Radical movements are merely battalions of the revolutionary army, each charged with a particular subversive task. Undoubtedly, the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file gays are well-meaning people who have sincerely bought into the myth peddled by their leaders that the marriage license is the ultimate token of recognition of their normalcy. They know not what they are doing. But the wizards behind the curtain know better, and there shouldn’t be any illusions about their intentions: they want nothing less than to bring down the capitalist system, and they view their movement as a battering ram to shatter its principal bastion, America. Bringing down the traditional family is a crucial step in that direction.
RS McCain looks at how the Left looks at “political” causes
After her daughter’s eighth grade math teacher wore an anti-gay marriage pin to school, Cynthia Deford, a gay parent in Port Angeles, Washington, started an online campaign to ban teachers from promoting political causes in the classroom.
The Steven’s Middle School teacher, who has remained unnamed, wore a button to class in the days before the Nov. 6 election that stated “No on 74: one man + one woman = marriage,” according to Deford. The political message refers to Washington’s Referendum 74, which legalized gay marriage in the state, passing with 52 percent of the vote.
Although Port Angeles School District Superintendent Jane Pryne told the Peninsula Daily News that the issue has been addressed, and the school district already has policy regarding politics in the classroom in place, Deford wants more to be done; she is calling for an official apology and sensitivity training for teachers.
“It just shocked me that it happened here,” Deford told the Peninsula Daily News.
In her online petition on SignOn.org, Deford wrote that her daughter came home upset after seeing a teacher — who she once thought highly of — wear such a discriminatory button in class.
She wants to “ban teachers from promoting political causes in the classroom,” but tolerance toward homosexuality . . . Well, that’s notpolitical. That’s just the way things are. Unless you question “the way things are,” and then you’re evil.
So the agenda now is compulsory approval. Everyone must pledge allegiance to the Rainbow Flag, and once you are forbidden to disapprove of homosexuality, logically, your refusal to participate in gay sex will be classified as an unacceptable form of “discrimination.”
This isn’t about “equality” or “liberation.” No, it’s about homo hegemony, as the fanatics seek to secure a privileged and superior status for themselves and their preferences. That’s not disco music you hear, it’s the sound of hobnailed boots marching over broken glass.
Tolerance gradually reveals itself as totalitarianism, and it’s amazing that people acquiesce to such bullying. According to a recent Gallup survey, 3.4 percent of Americans identify themselves as “LGBT,” to use the de rigeur acronym. Why should 96.6 percent be compelled to kowtow to the sensibilities of the 3.4 percent?
The most important part, to me anyway, is that last paragraph, especially these words Tolerance gradually reveals itself as totalitarianism. Truer words have never been uttered, tolerance, and its bastard cousins, inclusion and sensitivity are used by the Left not to create a more forgiving atmosphere, or to urge folks to be more polite. Instead these words have been rebranded by the Left, to have completely different meanings than they traditionally have. Tolerance is not tolerance anymore, or acceptance, it is now used as a weapon to silence ideological beliefs the Left finds distasteful. Sensitivity has become a tool to force Liberalism on those that dare holds views that are not Liberal. Inclusion? HA! That is a word used to “include” only certain viewpoints, all others are demonized, ostracized and most certainly excluded from debate.
For example, take what McCain writes above. there is nothing hateful, or bigoted in his words, but, since he makes solid points that might persuade people he is correct, the Left must either silence his message or assassinate his character. And since The Other McCain will never stop expressing his views, or defending his principles, he must be discredited so that no one listens to anything he says. Further, look at what I wrote here, nothing Homophobic there. In fact I do not have issue with Gay marriage, or with Gay adoption, or with civil unions. But, that will not matter, any Leftist reading my words will attempt to paint me as an evil homophobe, because only certain views are to be tolerated by the “tolerant Left”!
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
LIBERAL AMERICA—THE SODOM THAT PRETENDS IT’S KANSAS
“In America,” Jim Kalb recently remarked, “everything is normal”—meaning that no matter how radical, extreme, and perverted things become in our society, they are and must be seen as ordinary, traditional, and unthreatening.
The result is the peculiar phenomenon that I have described as the “radical mainstream.” On one hand, liberals and their mainstream-conservative enablers boast of America’s transformational progress since the mid-twentieth century; on the other hand, they claim that we haven’t changed at all. The fact that all kinds of moral and constitutional norms have been shattered, and that nihilism, gross sexual libertinism, and statism are the new norm, is never allowed into public consciousness. The liberals suppress the ugly truth of what America has become, in order to maintain the legitimacy of liberal society; and the conservatives join in the suppression, because their goal is to keep their place at the liberal table; they know that anyone who speaks the truth about the radical transformation of America will no longer be welcome…. — AmNation
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Just as two plus two equals five, repugnant, disease-spreading, but politically correct forms of sexual depravity are now normal. Therefore, thinking that normal sex is normal is abnormal:
The “Proud Schools” pilot program, implemented in 12 government schools in Sydney and the Hunter [Region], is designed to stamp out “homophobia, transphobia (fear of transsexuals) and heterosexism”. …
The program defines “heterosexism” as the practice of “positioning heterosexuality as the norm for human relationship,” according to the Proud Schools Consultation Report. …
The program should “focus on [reversing] the dominance of heterosexism rather than on homophobia,” according to the minutes from the Proud Schools steering committee on March 22, 2011.
Bureaucrats have devoted $250,000 looted from taxpayers to the pilot program.
The pilot drew on a similar program in Victoria, the “Safe Schools Coalition” to “support sexual diversity” in schools, which holds that gender and sexuality are not fixed but fluid concepts. In Victoria, each participating school is advised to erect a noticeboard specifically for gay, lesbian, transgender and “gender-questioning” young people. …
A Proud Schools consultation report also recommended that schools review existing [Personal Development, Health, and Physical Education] programs from Year 7 to “incorporate learning about same-sex attraction and sexual diversity”.
Any ideas on why government schools systematically attempt to brainwash children into embracing depraved and obviously unhealthy sexual practices? The defilement of innocence out of sheer love of evil is the best explanation I can come up with.
On a tip from Artfldgr.
What are the purposes of the CIA and FBI? To collect intelligence, investigate crimes, defend American interests, ensure public safety? Of course not. They are federal agencies; therefore, their purpose is to advance moonbattery:
From the CIA’s website:
From the FBI’s website:
Meanwhile, our ambassadors are getting murdered and dragged naked through the streets in part because bureauweenies are too busy promoting sexual depravity to collect intelligence that would allow us to defend ourselves. The FBI still hasn’t secured the crime scene (or rather, act of war scene) at our overrun consulate in Libya.
The consequences of allowing our government to be dominated by liberals will continue to be hideous.
Hat tip: Before It’s News, on a tip from Joe B.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
France’s Socialist Government To Ban Words “Mother” And “Father” From All Official Documents Thanks To Gay Marriage Law…
A glimpse into our “progressive” future should we choose to go down it.
France is set to ban the words “mother” and “father” from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.
The move, which has outraged Catholics, means only the word “parents” would be used in identical marriage ceremonies for all heterosexual and same-sex couples.
The draft law states that “marriage is a union of two people, of different or the same gender”.
It says all references to “mothers and fathers” in the civil code – which enshrines French law – will be swapped for simply “parents”.
The law would also give equal adoption rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples.
Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told France’s Catholic newspaper La Croix: “Who is to say that a heterosexual couple will bring a child up better than a homosexual couple, that they will guarantee the best conditions for the child’s development?”
Note: Legalizing gay marriage and adoption was one of the first laws France’s socialist government passed after they were elected in May.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Some think that nothing could be more blasphemous, pernicious, and disgusting than homosexual “marriage.” But for social engineers among our liberal ruling class, it is only the thin edge of the wedge. Bigwig Hollywood director Nick Cassevetes takes a natural step by applying pro-gay marriage reasoning to incest:
The director of the popular romance “The Notebook” was out promoting a new film [Yellow] that features an incestuous relationship between a brother and sister.
“I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids — who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage — love who you want?” Cassavetes said. …
“This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it, and doing what you want,” he added.
Again we see that getting your culture from Hollywood is like getting your drinking water from a septic tank.
Just down the line: bestiality and of course, pedophilia. What comes after that, only a progressive could be sick enough to imagine. Refer to the works of the Marquis de Sade for clues.
On tips from wingmann, Sam, Wiggins, G. Fox, and Bob Roberts.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Peaceful Priest Praying The Rosary is Shouted Down By Angry Gay Protestors Demanding “Tolerance”…What The?
From Clash Daily
There has been a well-publicized string of cases lately in which federal courts have struck down marriage laws like the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. It remains to be seen whether a decision issued yesterday by a federal District Court in Hawaii will be treated as newsworthy.
In this case, the court comprehensively rejected the claim that the U.S. Constitution mandates same-sex marriage in the State of Hawaii. From the court’s synopsis (I’ve omitted the citations):
Carefully describing the right at issue, as required by both the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit, the right Plaintiffs seek to exercise is the right to marry someone of the same-sex. The right to marry someone of the same-sex, is not “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and thus it is not a fundamental right.
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden [of showing that Hawaii had no rational basis for its marriage definition].
Specifically, the legislature could rationally conclude that defining marriage as a union between a man and woman provides an inducement for opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby decreasing the percentage of children accidently conceived outside of a stable, long-term relationship. The Supreme Court has stated that a classification subject to rational basis review will be upheld when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not.” It is undisputed opposite-sex couples can naturally procreate and same-sex couples cannot. Thus, allowing opposite-sex couples to marry furthers this interest and allowing same-sex couples to marry would not do so.
The legislature could also rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex. Under rational basis review, as long as the rationale for a classification is at least debatable, the classification is constitutional. Both sides presented evidence on this issue and both sides pointed out flaws in their opponents’ evidence. Thus, the Court concludes this rationale is at least debatable and therefore sufficient.
Finally, the state could rationally conclude that it is addressing a divisive social issue with caution.
What explains the different outcome? As a legal matter, it was more careful attention to the actual Constitution and relevant precedent. This case may also be a better indicator of the validity of these claims. The other cases have been brought in carefully selected jurisdictions by national activist groups with any eye on strategy. The Hawaii case seems to have developed somewhat spontaneously and so may give us a better indication of what courts might do that are not predisposed to the same-sex marriage conclusion.
Dale Schowengerdt and the attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom are to be congratulated for stepping in to defend the case when the governor refused to do so.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
To the PC Thought Prisoner, affirming the family is the same (by analogy) as opposing sodomy,
and sodomites are regarded not as the practitioners of a disordered sexual appetite but (by analogy) as a separate race or ethnic group who suffer unjust persecution, such as slavery or Jim Crow laws. Hence, reasoning entirely by analogy, if a seller of chicken sandwiches and waffle-cut potato fries affirms the family (which, to sane men, is a comment as boilerplate and boring as being in favor of Mom and Apple Pie and the Flag) to the PC Thought Prisoner, that man is (by analogy) a slaver and a segregationist. – On Neobarbarism | John C. Wright’s Journal
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
This is an Example of The People That Supported the Gay “Kiss-In” at Chick-fil-a – Any More Need to be Said?
These people are deranged, to state the blatantly obvious.
Hey, it’s free speech!
Think about it. Most of us love sex but if we were beset by a hostile assailant, we would prefer a punch in the face to sexual intercourse.
I’m looking at pictures from the Chick-fil-A kiss-in. These were people who wanted to demonstrate support for same-sex marriage. (I agree with them on that issue, by the way.) As their form of protest, they chose kissing — individuals of the same sex, kissing in restaurants that are associated with opposition to same-sex marriage. So the idea was, go where you think you are not loved — even though there’s no evidence that Chick-fil-A treats gay customers with less respect and friendliness than straight customers — and do something you think will upset them.
Now, restaurants generally don’t want anybody making out, so you’ve chosen behavior that would be disruptive to a restaurant’s business whether the kissing couples are same or opposite sex. The form of expression is offensive and not like the old civil rights demonstrations where black people sat at lunch counters and were not served. They simply acted like customers — good customers — and the only reason it worked as a demonstration was that the store only served food to white people, the policy the protesters very successfully demonstrated was wrong. Kissing at Chick-fil-A does nothing to show what’s wrong about anything Chick-fil-A is doing. It’s just displaying hostility to the place.
And it’s displaying hostility with kissing. So what have they done? They’ve perverted kissing, which should be an expression of love. Ironic, considering that the gay rights movement seeks to dispel the belief that homosexuality is perverted.
It’s a challenge to protest with gestures of love. It can be done, but it can’t be done with hate or love is not love. We think of hippies and their love-ins (and be-ins). I don’t remember those demonstrations involving targeting any person or business. Yes, those hippies upset the squares — the straight people — and through what they claimed was love they made themselves dislikable to people they knew would be bothered by the way they acted, but that just goes to show how hard it is to use love to express something other than love.
ADDED: Here’s a sign in a photograph chosen to top a favorable presentation of the kiss-in: “We’re Here/We’re Queer/& We’re Not Eating.” See how different that is from the old lunch-counter sit-ins? These 2 men are flaunting their taking up space in a commercial establishment without being customers. They are kissing as a way of saying: We’re hostile to you.
The second sign says “I [heart] my boyfriend just as much as you love your spouse!,” but the man is failing to demonstrate the equivalence between him and his boyfriend and “you” and your spouse because unlike the black sit-in protesters, they are not behaving like the people they want to say they are equal to.
The civil rights sitters-in behaved like ordinary customers, causing the store to behave in a way that onlookers could see was ugly. But since a straight couple doesn’t go to a restaurant and stand around kissing without buying anything, the 2 men are not demonstrating sameness, but difference. An onlooker’s reaction could be: No, you are not like me and my spouse because we only go to restaurants to buy food, and when we do, we treat everyone around us with respect, and when we kiss we do it in an appropriate setting and only to express love. Again, I see a terrible irony: They’ve sent the message of perverted love.
IN THE COMMENTS: As my whimsy leads me reminds us: “Judas perverted kissing when he betrayed Jesus.”
I was thinking about Jesus when I wrote this post. Not in the context of Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss, but Jesus telling us to love our enemy. If someone strikes you on the face, instead of striking back, turn the other cheek, an invitation to the assailant to strike you a second time. That’s how much love Jesus expects from you. That’s a demonstration of love to the onlooker, who receives the message, the kind of demonstration that was made — to brilliant effect — in the civil rights era.
House Representatives signed a letter in support of Chick-fil-A, inviting the restaurant to come roost in their district.
FOX News reported:
For all those politicians who were piling on Chick-fil-A last week, there are a bunch more rolling out the red carpet for the chicken chain.
A letter drafted by Mississippi Republican Rep. Alan Nunnelee praises the Atlanta-based fast food restaurant as an American success story and decries attacks mounted against it after company President Dan Cathy spoke out against same-sex marriage. Nunnelee’s letter garnered 16 signatures from colleagues in the House of Representatives.
“We write today to show support for the manner in which you have defended your values and reputation in the face of unfair and malicious criticism,” the letter to Cathy begins.
The letter from Nunnelee and fellow Republicans states that they are “bewildered” that local politicians in Boston, Chicago, New York and San Francisco have said the company was unwelcome in their communities because of Cathy’s stance.
“We are bewildered by those who would take offense at your values and would block the expansion of your business into their communities,” it states. “We welcome Chick-fil-A’s investment in our districts.”
Nunnelee said he was moved to pen the letter after what he called a “vicious smear campaign” against the restaurant.
“The criticism they have received has been appalling,” Nunnelee said. “Elected officials that are now threatening to block new Chick-fil-A restaurants in their cities are acting in a manner that is un-American. Demanding ideological conformity in order to be allowed to run your business is a dangerous precedent. It is like something that would happen in Soviet Russia.”
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Hitler: ‘My Main Goal of Supporting the German Community Outweighed the Collateral Damage to Poland …’
Posted on | August 4, 2012
This is a slight paraphrase of how the obnoxious a–hole justifies hisbullying of a Chick-fil-A employee at a drive-through window:
Adam Smith berates a Chick-fil-A employee, got fired, and now has released a new video apologizing to Rachel, who was his drive-thru victim. He goes on about how she handled his rant with grace, patience, and apologizes for his actions. He wishes her the best of luck in her future endeavors.
Then…he explains why he went to Chcik-fil-A and went on a rampage. He says his “main goal of supporting the gay community outweighed the collateral damage that Rachel became” and admits that he only saw her in that aspect. He then details how we need to stop “rationalizing our destructive actions this way … we need to start seeing people as people.” He admits he failed his own test.
Watch the video at Legal Insurrection. Keep in mind that Smith only had this remorseful response after he shot video of himself hectoring Rachel and took the time to upload that video to YouTube, evidently expecting to bask in the admiring applause of his fellow liberals. It was only when the self-righteous bully failed to gain the anticipated admiration — and indeed, became an instant symbol of the bullying intolerance of the anti-Chick-fil-A boycotters — that Smith experienced remorse.
Smith first attempted to delete the video, only to discover the lack of an “unpublish” function on the Internet. After he was fired from his job, he now retroactively avows his “main goal of supporting the gay community,” as if this explains why a corporate executive with an MBA thought it would be a good idea to post a video of himself heckling a poor woman working at a fast-food drive through window.
Andy at AOSHQ says, “When something billed as an apology has a 7+ minute run time, you’re doing it wrong.”
Apologies for the Godwin’s Law violation in the headline, but the collateral damage to Adam Smith’s reputation was outweighed by my main goal of supporting the fast-food community.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Muslim Countries That Sell The Gas That Goes in Your Car Execute Homosexuals – And Chick-fil-A Offends You?
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
There’s a number of examples of progressive anti-religious hatred at the post.
Plus, a link to the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance.
PREVIOUSLY: “Atheist for #LGBT Rights Says Chick-fil-A ‘Harms Mor Gays’.”
Posted on | July 31, 2012
A plank supporting same-sex marriage will be included as part of the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) draft platform, according to an exclusive report at the Washington Blade, which notes it was a unanimous decision.
Fire, brimstone and further updates expected . . .
UPDATE: We are supposed to believe — indeed, the “respectable Republican” types often argue quite vociferously — that only ignorant hateful bigots oppose same-sex marriage. But there are fundamental issues at stake, as I explained in November 2008:
Before he was purged from the bench, former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore made a remarkable and lamentably unappreciated contribution to American jurisprudence.
Concurring in the 2002 case of Ex Parte H.H., a custody dispute involving a lesbian mother, Moore demonstrated that homosexuality had no protected status in the Anglo-American common-law tradition, that indeed such behavior had been proscribed for centuries as “a crime against nature,” and that Alabama courts had consistently condemned homosexual acts as “illegal under the laws of this state and immoral in the eyes of most of its citizens.”
One does not have to share this abhorrence of homosexuality to agree that Moore’s concurrence — copiously studded with court precedents and citations of Blackstone’s Commentaries, 16th-century British jurist Sir Christopher Wray and even the Justinian Code — accurately summarized the legal foundation of the case against gay rights. . . .
Read the whole thing. You may blithely shrug, “To hell with the Anglo-American common-law tradition,” but such a dismissive attitude is a large step down a very slippery slope: Ideas Have Consquences.
UPDATE II: Not directly related, but it’s encouraging to see that Mitt Romney’s (hetero)sex(ual) appeal is still driving ‘em crazy.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/