In Only 7 Years, We’ve Gone from Simply Accepting Homosexuality to Finding a Right to Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S. Constitution
Justice Antonin Scalia warned this would happen when he wrote his dissent in the Lawrence v Texas case:
We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indiana’s public indecency statute furthered “a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality,” … 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. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” …
And he was exactly correct, despite the outcries from the GLBT movement at the time who called him a scaremonger and stated they had no interest in pushing same-sex marriage. Plain and simple, they lied. This has been their goal all along… not just to gain acceptance, but to push their lifestyle on the nation and force acceptance and promotion of their lifestyle in every aspect of our culture, from same-sex marriage to adoption to teaching the homosexual lifestyle in public schools to forcing acceptance in the religious community.
That said, this is a good comment (with which I agree completely) left in response to this post at AoSHQ:
“Similarly, a government cannot mandate what sort of sex is legal and what sex is illegal.”
That’s simply wrong as a matter of fact — as well as of policy. The law can and should prohibit many kinds of sexual activity. The last time I checked, adultery, for example, was still a crime in Maryland, Virginia, and D.C.
Incest, bestiality, rape, and other forms of sexual abuse are all still illegal (at least this week).
Here’s the problem with our contemporary approach to homosexuality: our culture cannot support a policy of toleration — toleration meaning leaving alone what we strongly disagree with. In our culture, it seems, it’s either complete prohibition or total acceptance. (It reminds me a bit of R.J. Neuhaus’s dictum: where orthodoxy is made optional, it will eventually be proscribed.)
This is how we go, in a matter of a few years, from a situation where half the states outlaw sodomy to a federal judge saying the Constitution not only permits but actually requires SSM.
Here are the reasons I oppose any public recognition of homosexuality:
(1) It’s unhealthy. This has been documented a thousand times over. The AIDS crisis was driven by an ocean of unsafe homosexual practices. But instead of AIDS ushering in a new Victorian era, as a sensible society would have had it, instead we’ve had a further weakening of sexual morality.
(2) Homosexuality is not a purely biological or genetic phenomenon. Twin studies have proven that (if it were purely genetic, then all identical twins would share the same sexuality — but they don’t). That means that there is a huge cultural component to it. If the culture supports it, then there will be more of it. Young people who are in an unsteady state with regard to their sexuality can very easily be tipped on to the wrong side.
(3) Homosexuality as a political movement has in the last few years made it its goals to attack the bedrock institutions of society: marriage and the military, the very institutions that protect women and children on the one hand and the nation on the other. Excuse me if I oppose those who threaten me and mine.
(4) Public acceptance of homosexuality and SSM permanently alters the understanding of marriage as the primary means of reconciling the sexes and of providing for the orderly procreation of children. I don’t say that homosexuals led on this front: the acceptance of contraception, abortion, and divorce led the way, but SSM seals the deal. There’s no going back from that change–short of apocalypse now.
(5) Lastly, there is a theological point: Acceptance of open homosexuality and SSM is basically a proclamation of atheism. It is a repudiation of all traditional religious belief about the distinctive and complementary nature of the sexes and about the universal moral law — the law of nature and of nature’s God. It is the establishment of unbelief and the disenfranchisement of the majority of religious believers in this country. Won’t I now be a thought criminal when I teach my children that homosexuality is wrong and SSM is a tragedy and a fiction?
Posted by: Leo Ladenson at August 20, 2010 04:34 PM
A good marriage must be created.
In the art of marriage the little things are the big things…
It is never being too old to hold hands.
It is remembering to say “I love you” at least once a day.
It is never going to sleep angry.
It is having a mutual sense of values and common objectives.
It is standing together facing the world.
It is forming a circle of love that gathers in the whole family.
It is speaking words of appreciation and demonstrating gratitude in thoughtful ways.
It is having the capacity to forgive and forget.
It is giving an atmosphere in which each can grow.
It is finding room for the things of the spirit.
It is a common search for the good and beautiful.
It is not only marrying the right partner,
It is being the right partner.
After reading through recent blog posts and comment sections from right-of-center blogs regarding CPAC 2010 (HERE, HERE & HERE), it seems like the Democrat Party’s perfect scenario is occurring. Instead of focusing on fiscal matters and working to simply get the GOP back to its winning platform circa 2004, it seems the GOP is allowing social liberals work to completely transform the Party… and weak-kneed conservatives are getting duped into letting them do it.
It’s interesting to hear “moderate” GOPers whine about social issues, then turn around & prop up pro-same-sex marriage as “winning issue”
On the one hand these people say “the GOP needs to stop focusing so much on social issues like abortion and man-woman marriage; they are divisive and irrelevant”… yet on the other hand they say “we need to make the GOP tent bigger and be open to redefining marriage and ‘pro-choice’ people”.
So, basically, what these people want to do is make the GOP a socially liberal, fiscally conservative party. In other words, they want to get rid of the current platform of the GOP (pro-Life, pro-man/woman marriage, strong national defense, fiscally conservative) and have the new party be the ideal Democrat Party (ie, what the Democrat Party would be today were it not hijacked by capitalism-hating Marxists: pro-abortion, pro-redefining marriage, strong national defense, fiscally conservative).
Why they are doing this, I have no idea. There was nothing wrong with the GOP circa 2004. The GOP platform was about fiscal conservatism, pro-life, pro- keeping marriage as man/woman union, strong national defense. That was a winning platform. The reason for the losses in 2006 and 2008 was because the GOP strayed from fiscal conservatism.
Thus, to get back to winning, all the GOP has to do is get back to fiscal conservatism. There is absolutely NO reason to stop being pro-life & pro-keeping marriage as man/woman union. Not only is the GOP correct on those issues, they are also winning issues on election day. They only reason to push pro-choice and same-sex marriage on the GOP is in order to destroy it from within.
So the GOP should be wary of anyone pushing abortion and same-sex marriage within the GOP.
I also think the social liberal movement within the GOP is not only working to destroy the GOP, but is also causing a greater desire for a third Party to form.
If we use the analogy of the three legs of the Party platform being (1) Fiscal conservatism (low spending, low taxes, less government) (2) social conservatism (pro-life, anti-AGW hoax and pro-marriage as a man/woman union) & (3) strong on national defense (pro-military and anti-Amnesty), it is easy to see that the reason the GOP fell in 2006 and 2008 was due to a lack of adherence to Leg 1 of the Platform. Thus, it would follow that the way to get the GOP back in favor would be to get back to fiscal conservatism, while keeping everything else that isn’t broken.
Instead, we have people advocating to not only fix Leg 1, but to eliminate Leg 2 (ie, become pro-choice and in favor of redefining marriage). I absolutely do not see the logic to that ‘strategery’.
Unless, of course, the goal is to split the GOP from within, driving away social conservatives and forcing them to vote third Party… which ends up helping Democrats.
We have Muslims working within the United States Military to sabotage us. Does the GOP have liberal Democrats working within it to sabotage it as well?
From the discussion on my Facebook page:
yeah, but not being social lib enough the Indies went left, now they preach we not right. confusing.
I think we need to stay within our agenda no matter, we lost 92 because of agenda too strict but came back in 94, think same now. folks didnt want conservatism untill they tasted liberalism again
Look at 79-80, same then too-confusing cycle
Well, 1992 we lost because we went liberal, when Bush 41 went back on his promise to not raise taxes. Perot was attractive to many Americans who were fed up with both Parties and wanted fiscal conservatism. They were angry with Bush 41 for betraying them and went 3rd Party. The GOP got the message and campaigned for the House in 1994 with a strong fiscal conservative message.
That’s where were are here in 2010. In 2006 & 2008, the American public was pissed off about the lack of fiscal conservatism of the GOP and either stayed home or voted for “change” and “hope”. Stupid, sure, but the GOP has only themselves to blame for not sticking to their fiscal conservative roots.
So, to get a repeat of 1994, all the GOP has to do is get back to fiscal conservative principles and they are a lock to take back the House and possibly the Senate.
BUT, if they decide to saw off one of the other 3 legs of the platform and go socially liberal, it will be an utter disaster. And the base of the party will have had it with all the moves Left of the GOP and go form a Reagan-like 3rd Party to get the 3 legs of the platform they want.
And, yes, that just helps Democrats, since it splits the majority center-right electorate between the GOP and 3rd Party. But that is the doing of the GOP. If the GOP continues to reject social conservatism, it will destroy itself from within. And it will be their own fault.
Despite the efforts of the pro-homosexual agenda crowd to accuse us otherwise, the following (below) is the general opinion of probably 90% of Conservatives and Republicans (as well as mine). Being against the redefinition of marriage as well as against special “rights” for homosexuals is no more “anti-gay” than being against ‘Affirmative Action’ is “racist”. Anyone who says otherwise is simply smearing in order to push their agenda.
Gays don’t want to accept their orientation as a not uncommon developmental disorder, because it’s personally hurtful(although perhaps shouldn’t be, but that’s another story) and is a result of no fault of their own, and still carries a stigma.
And many heterosexuals don’t want to be compelled to provide special accommodation for what they consider a disorder, and rebel at being coerced into accepting homosexuality as another version of normal.
If someone had a compulsive disorder, like frequent hand-washing, would we install sinks at all work stations in case a hand-washer was to be employed there? On the other hand, should we persecute that person to the ends of the earth?
Advocating civil rights for gays as a special class of person requires a presumption of a genetic cause to homosexuality that many are unwilling to accept, and is unproven. Thus, gay-conservative at CPAC is grating in a way that conservative who happens to be gay isn’t.
My own guess is that if we could reach a conclusion that homosexuality isn’t normal, but isn’t evil either, or a conscious choice, then the sting would come out of the whole issue. I for one don’t want it portrayed in schools or the common culture as normal, and as an equal alternative to heterosexuality, and I don’t want state sanctioned gay marriage, and I don’t want the society as a whole pressed on this issue further than it’s apparently willing to go. That being said, hatred of people with same-sex attraction who aren’t trying to push a social agenda on others is hateful and wrong.
JiangxiDad on February 20, 2010 at 11:51 AM
I so tire of hearing married couples whine about their marriages. As if others forced them into it or something, and now our penalty for that is to hear them bitch to us about it for the remainder of their marriage. Whether on Facebook, on blog comment sections, talking with people at work or overhearing people in public, the incessant negative and pessimistic whining about bad relationships gets to be like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard. Whenever I hear some of the things these people say and some of the ways in which they say them, I just want to say “well, gee whiz, if you are this much of an annoying, whiney pain the ass in your marriage, it’s no wonder it’s not fulfilling”.
But, every now and then, I’ll come across someone who truly appreciates the spirit and blessing of marriage. And it just warms my heart. This comment is a prime example of that:
Okay, here we go. When your married a long time and, if it is right, being married is easy. You don’t have to work on it. It comes as naturally as the sunrise. You are going to have arguements, even fights. Argue points. Don’t call each other names and say hateful crap because you’re too childish or inarticulate to express your frustrations.
Your life will be redefined. I am no longer Dan *****. I am husband, Father, even Grampa. I love that. That’s more important than Dan ***** ever was or will be. I wish this for everyone though I know it never will be. It’s as comfortable as a warm blanket on a cold night. With that smaltzy stuff out of the way, I’m going to bed. I wish you all, Buona Notte
Posted by: Ohio Dan at February 14, 2010 11:52 PM
Kudos to you, Ohio Dan. If only more people would look at their marriages in the same manner.