Thoughts on the rapidity of the same-sex marriage sea change
One of the most distinctive things about yesterday’s same-sex marriage ruling was the rapidity with which such a huge change came about. It’s something Justice Scalia remarked upon in his scathing dissent:
The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds”” minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly”” could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
Comparisons to slavery don’t work, not the least because slavery was never as widespread as the prohibition on same-sex marriages, and because even as far back as the Founding Fathers—who allowed slavery to be part of the republic—they did so with reluctance and for practical reasons, and most of them considered it wrong and fervently hoped it would die out over time of its own accord.
One can observe the enormous rapidity of the change of attitude towards same-sex marriage by contemplating that Congress passed DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, in 1996, and President Clinton signed it. Not only did it pass, but the margin was a whole lot greater than the ratio of 5-4 by which SCOTUS ruled on the issue yesterday:
Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (Yeas: 342; Nays: 67)
Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (Yeas: 85; Nays: 14)
You can also amuse yourself, if you care to, by watching videos of prominent liberals intoning their support for traditional marriage only a few very short years ago. One of them, of course, was President Obama. Another was Hillary Clinton, whose failure to “evolve” lasted until 2013.
One thing that strikes me is not only the rapidity of the change, but the lack of acknowledgement of the flip-flop on the part of the liberal politicians. I would ask whether they were lying then or whether they are lying now, or whether they really suddenly Saw the Light, but I’m pretty sure of the answer, and it’s that they were lying then in order to get votes. Now they don’t have to lie anymore, at least about that (they lie about plenty else, of course).
I don’t see that a lot of people care, either. What I see on the liberal side is applause for their newly evolved state and/or approval of the cleverness with which they lied in order to get votes and gain power.
I read somewhere (don’t remember where, or I’d cite it) that now opponents of same-sex marriage can all relax and go on to other things because the fight is over—the left has gotten what it wants. Would that it were so! As I’ve written several times before, the left does not relax, and it never has gotten what it wants, which is total control and total capitulation from the other side. The persecution of the religious opponents to gay marriage is continuing apace and will pick up speed.
But more importantly, it’s not about same-sex marriage. As I’ve written several times, I don’t have a problem with a states’ citizens voting to legalize same-sex marriage if they so desire. I do have a problem with finding a right in the Constitution that doesn’t exist there, because that gives activists the green light for almost anything they desire, as long as they can get five liberal justices in there to bypass the Constitution and the will of the people.
First, the near total capitulation of Republicans is upon us.
Second, you are right again Neo, next up is pulling all tax exempt status from Religious groups and Polygamy the former will be within the year the latter within 3 years.
Next two things up for the Progs:
1. Polygamy lawsuit with Muslim plaintiffs.This is an absolute lock.
2. Attack on the tax exempt status of religious universities. They will start with Georgetown or Boston College. Probably Georgetown as it in DC and the federal judges there are solidly liberal. And Georgetown is Jesuit in name only these days. Bonus points because they can ask Scalia to recuse himself as he is an alum. They will just try to pimp him with that motion.
I should have been clearer. CAIR will pay for the Muslim polygamy lawsuit and pick some appealing plaintiffs and file the lawsuit in a solid liberal state like MA.
But there is NO way the Progs can run from polygamy. Now that there is a federal and fundamental marriage right no silly little State can limit it to only two people especially when the people have a long standing sincere religious belief in polygamy. First Amendment baby!
Just no rational reason to stop it. Love is love.
Check out the law school exam question I wrote for Judge Kopf’s blog.
http://herculesandtheumpire.com/2015/06/27/judge-joe-has-the-right-to-crow-but-he-wont/
Paradigm shift. Norm/stigma.
I see this as the Roe v. Wade of the 21st century. They don’t want to convince us of the reasonableness of their cause, and they won’t take the time to do so, they want it mandated.
Not only will the left push polygamy but they will also insist that those in a polygamist relationship will have all the spousal benefits traditionally limited to a couple. In other words a working Muslim man can have his three stay at home “wives” all eligible for full social security spousal benefits and a full ride on the company health policy. Anyone who objects will be derided as a racist and a religious bigot.
My facebook is rainbowed out. There’s some app that will put your pix in a rainbow effect with horizontal lines 1/5 of the image thick. It has morphed into you agree or you’re a bigot.
True – the left never stops. I agree – the religious assault starts very soon.
Evidently Ruth Ginsburg said that Roe was a mistake and that they should have been more incremental in their approach. The way they accomplished abortion on demand created the pro-life movement which is still going strong, decades later. I doubt we will have the same thing happen here, but I see that the Left just doesn’t care.
I see the flag issue and the gay marriage issue as linked somehow, but can’t figure out in what manner. It just feels like ‘two peas in a pod’.
Neo: “I read somewhere (don’t remember where, or I’d cite it) that now opponents of same-sex marriage can all relax and go on to other things because the fight is over–the left has gotten what it wants.”
That’s not how the activist game works.
As long as there is a society to compete for, the activist game is non-stop and always. What opposing activists do socially to stigmatize and marginalize your norms, your activists can do to theirs. But you have to play the game full tilt, non-stop and always, to flip norm/stigma. What the Left has accomplished, they’ve won by fair right of competition.
They’ve earned it.
If your side is unable, or – as is more the case now – unwilling by choice to compete in the only social cultural/political game there is, then simply, their preferences will stay normal and your preferences will stayed stigmatized.
It’s just competition.
What upsets me is the ObamaCare decision. I think what’s even more dangerous than inferring things that aren’t there is willingly ignoring things that are there, written in black and white. What’s the point of electing Congress members to pass laws if what they write is just a suggestion and not binding? And if those who get to decide what’s binding are unelected and unaccountable (i.e. bureaucrats and judges).
When that decision was announced, Ann Althouse wrote on her blog , “Chaos avoided.”. A commenter on her blog replied, “Short-term chaos avoided, long-term chaos assured.”
Neo: “As I’ve written several times before, the left does not relax, and it never has gotten what it wants, which is total control and total capitulation from the other side.”
They’re building blocks and beachheads. For an activist, concessions are commencement, not conclusion.
“slavery was never as widespread as the prohibition on same-sex marriages”
As far as I know, at least until recently, there were no prohibitions against same-sex marriage any more than there were prohibitions against pigs flying.
The rainbow coalition would have it that the matter is settled. It’s as settled as Roe v Wade. The fault lines do not grow narrower or shallower; they grow to gulf and chasm.
For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are — Niccolo Machiavelli
Before The Matrix (red pill, blue pill) there was Nicolo. But surely Nicolo was not unaware of revolutions, rebellions, revolts, and insurrections — throughout history. If humans were so easily beguiled with appearance we wouldn’t have had any of that and history would be one big bore. Everything has its limits — and the limits are no more mindful of Leftists and Gnostics than they are of limits. The outcome is known; the time is not.
Great comments above by all. I’d like to address this idea though:
“The way they accomplished abortion on demand created the pro-life movement which is still going strong, decades later. I doubt we will have the same thing happen here, but I see that the Left just doesn’t care. ”
In my mind, the marriage debate has the potential to create a deeper split than did abortion. Conservative Christians, although they feel compelled to stop the evil of abortion, have never really been required to assent to its legitimacy or participate in it. The nature of same-sex marriage in the future will make it difficult if not impossible for Christians to be a part of mainstream society or the economy. Christians may not be protesting like they do with abortion. There aren’t even any real good targets to protest against, but the distance between Christians and mainstream society is going to grow wider. The impact is going to be profound.
Neo: “I read somewhere (don’t remember where, or I’d cite it) that now opponents of same-sex marriage can all relax and go on to other things because the fight is over–the left has gotten what it wants.”
Eric: “That’s not how the activist game works.”
I heard one of the talking heads on Fox say a similar thing, like wow it’ll be great now to get this SSM thing behind us so that we can get on to more important issues (like, I assume, supporting the big government Republicans.
In an ideal world, such naivete should disqualify you from a TV pundit gig.
So you cannot prohibit same-sex marriage. But that does not mean you cannot promote traditional marriage. Maybe religious institutions ‘redefine’ marriage to recognize the traditional type. What makes traditional marriage important? Children. Make it about the children.
This is why the NRA doesn’t give in. We know that the other side will never be satisfied and that their goal is to ban guns.
…the distance between Christians and mainstream society is going to grow wider
Maybe not. After all, a 2013 Quinnipiac poll did find that 60 percent of Catholics support same-sex marriage.
“What makes traditional marriage important? Children. Make it about the children.”
This is the missing link IMO. The debate was almost entirely centered on adults’ desires/autonomy. Marriage has always been an institution with its procreative potential at its heart – it was implied that it could (would) switch from being about the adults to being about the children.
All the justices who voted yes should be impeached. Roberts should be impeached for his vote on SCOTUScare.
I don’t believe there was ever an actual “debate” on the matter. It was settled by Will & Grace and Modern Family, among other popular culture vehicles. And it wasn’t just about romantic love between two people — Modern Family concentrates on what wonderful parents gay people can be.
Progressive liberalism has resurrected sacrificial rites and class discrimination. It’s not surprising that they also support selective exclusion (i.e. “equal”). As for change, they believe in progress or monotonic change. Their religious/moral philosophy is, however, based on pro-choice doctrine or selective principles. They are whatever they are, whenever they are. In practice, they are amoral and opportunistic, but their demand for environmental stability creates a perception of goodwill and even good outcomes.
That said, beware of overlapping and convergent interests.
I agree with you Neo. Even as a conservative Christian, I would not have as great a problem with government-sanctioned gay unions legislated by states.
But federal government overreach this grieves me beyond words.
“But federal government overreach this grieves me beyond words.”
Two branches of said government are working against the Constitution and against Natural Law. The third branch, the Legislative, is peopled by the Evil Side and by People Who See No Evil, though claiming to represent We The People, those who see the Evil and have petitioned for a redress of grievances, to no avail.
The country descends in steps: down, level, down again, level again, down. Down with Wilson and the Progressives, down with FDR and the Democrats, down with Carter and the Democrats, down with Clinton and the Democrats (peace dividend, immorality–just to be clear that it’s not just about money), now down with Hussein and the Progressive Democrats. Not many upticks in the past century.
I figure we are close to the basement, which serves as a dungeon.
“I do have a problem with finding a right in the Constitution that doesn’t exist there, because that gives activists the green light for almost anything they desire, as long as they can get five liberal justices in there to bypass the Constitution and the will of the people.”
No one cares about the law or the constitution anymore. Even the ‘justices’ babbled about love in the majority decision.
Beth: “First, the near total capitulation of Republicans is upon us.”
A self-sabotaging error you and others make, and continue to make, is to assign to the Republicans the fundamental task of generating the elemental cultural force that’s source for this type of law and policy. That core piece simply is not for the Republicans to provide.
That core piece is for the people of the Right – and only for the people – thinking and acting as Marxist-method activists, and organized as a full-spectrum, non-stop and always, proselytizing and spreading, zealously advocating, competitive social movement to provide.
Note this key observation in Neo’s post:
Takeaway: The Democrats, at least in their role as elected officials, did not generate the “enormous rapidity of the change of attitude towards same-sex marriage” (Neo).
Left activists generated the necessary elemental cultural force.
The Democrats merely followed suit by doing their part.
The Republicans would do their part, too, if Right activists provided the core piece for the GOP to follow.
The Republicans aren’t to blame here. They don’t lead culture. If the people of the Right did their part by winning cultural dominance, then – and only then – could the Republicans follow suit by doing their part.
The fundamental failure is not by the Republicans. The failure is is by the people of the Right who can’t even be credited with an honest defeat in the activist game. With too few exceptions, they’ve willfully rejected Marxist-method activism when that is the only way to compete in the only social cultural/political game there is.
Instead, like you, they would rather blame the Republicans for the people’s failure.
We’ve got one huge problem that we’re not really talking about yet, let alone grappling with. A friend of mine, fellow Episcopalian, pointed out that the moslems can claim religious exemptions for all their nefarious ideas, not just polygamy but their misogynist treatment of women.
SO, the religious freedom America was founded to support was intended, always and only, to support believers from the Judeo-Christian morality/worldview. Not, for instance, those who practice human sacrifice or burn widows on funeral pyres, etc.
So what are we going to do with our Christian ideas of “human rights” when the anti-Christians are numerous enough to start making an uproar? How will we mix with the immiscible?
Here’s another thing: the Powers That Be have already decided to tacitly accept moslem human rights abuses: they, for instance, turn a blind eye to female genital mutilation practiced on children in New York and New Jersey. Moslem doctors will do it, and this has been known for over 20 years (I used to work for NGOs that specialized in women’s reproductive health, and they used to fight this stuff.)
So how can we make the argument for Christian and Jewish religious freedom, yet deny it to the barbarous aspects of Islam? Without, that is, standing proudly on OUR faith traditions as the rule for our nation?
As for making polygamy all cool and stuff, remember that loathsome HBO “comedy” called Big Love about a polygamous “family”? A NY theater director I know was a huge fan, thought it was a great idea. Why? Well, obviously, anything that hurts/outrages Christians’ moral standards has Got to be Great!!!
and to the devil with women’s rights; if they gave a [genuine] damn about that, they’d be fighting the moslems tooth and toenail.
So how can we make the argument for Christian and Jewish religious freedom, yet deny it to the barbarous aspects of Islam? Without, that is, standing proudly on OUR faith traditions as the rule for our nation?
The winner decides the rules.
How can the Left outlaw Christianity while forcing us to tolerate Islam the religion and jihad? Because they can.
The morality debate is a philosophical question, not a question about what to do in war.
So where are all those Libertarians that told us homo rights had nothing to do with Leftist slippery slopes? Where those boys at, that lectured us about how homo rights were a freedom issue and had nothing to do with government or us making other people do things.
I was not surprised though I would have been very surprised if you had told me twenty years ago or even 15 years ago that this would happen. I thought maybe it would happen after I was long gone, say in 2060. I will most likely, very likely — be gone before then but I am adding some padding. I mean, it would happen by the end of this century but not in the next thirty years. So I’m also astonished at how fast things have changed.
Yes, I am happy for the change but not necessarily about the way it has occurred. I do feel it would have been better if it came about through voting as it did recently in Ireland. It is my understanding that is the constitutional path to a change like this. I also believe that the government should just get out of the marriage business and give everyone civil unions and let “marriage” be religious or personal (call it what you want) since it seems to have so much sacred meaning to so many. And, the sacred is not the realm of the government in our country.
Once the government started giving out goodies with marriage, I mean social security and so on, it was inevitable that people who don’t get those goodies with their relationships would want the same. People want visitation rights in hospitals, they want the right to inherit or take care of their beloved’s belongings after that person has died. Sometimes, yes – there are children also, I know more and more gay and lesbian couples with children. Possibly, the government should have simply recognized contracts between individuals, legal contracts, and left it at that. People get the rest from culture. That way, people wouldn’t feel this pressure to do this or that, I mean — to always agree. I do worry about religious liberty because it is also a right, and it is important. I have no doubt that some on the left will use the gay marriage issue as a bludgeon against the religious.
However, make no mistake. For many people this is a wonderful event and they are celebrating with joy. Not because they want to destroy religion, but because they want acceptance and the rights of marriage that others have. I celebrate with them. I think those are the clear majority here, and not the uber-activist group. However, I also am worried about the possible repercussions described above regarding religious liberty. I guess time will tell.
Oh and yes Neo watching Democrats like Obama and Hillary suddenly publicly turn into gay marriage advocates is humorous. It is easy for them, for Obama in particular, to take credit now but I tell my LGB friends to not be fooled. I think it is a matter of political expediency for him, although like you, I suspect he was more pro-same sex marriage before his election. But for Obama it is politics.
@Dennis
“Not only will the left push polygamy but they will also insist that those in a polygamist relationship will have all the spousal benefits traditionally limited to a couple. In other words a working Muslim man can have his three stay at home “wives” all eligible for full social security spousal benefits and a full ride on the company health policy. Anyone who objects will be derided as a racist and a religious bigot.”
No need to imagine. That already happens in UK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2180942/Polygamous-immigrant-families-paid-benefits-Government-blunder.html
Liberty Wolf said:
“Not because they want to destroy religion, but because they want acceptance and the rights of marriage that others have. I celebrate with them.”
Sorry Liberty but I do not celebrate tyranny.
I have always had an admiration for transgender people and I used to be totally accepting of homosexuals. When the anit-sodomy laws came up for review I was in favor of repealing them. The story then was that “what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom should not be of concern to other people.”
Obviously gays who made this claim were lying since what they really wanted was to practice their deviant sex in public in front of children and to force everyone else through violence when necessary to accept their sexual proclivities as normal and righteous.
Yann Says:
June 28th, 2015 at 4:02 am
@Dennis
“No need to imagine. That already happens in UK.”
The only possible explanation for the behavior of Western elites is that they have decided that Western Civilization must be destroyed and must be replaced by Islam. Even the homosexuals and transgenders seem to crave the lash of Sharia law for some reason. Everything the left claim they want, freedom and equality for themselves is antithetical to Islam but yet they rush to empower Islam as fast as they can.
Golda Meir’s quote about the strength of hatred among Palestinians is equally applicable to leftists:
“Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.”
About 10 years ago there was a middle aged lesbian couple in the house across the street. They had cats and were pleasant people. The only thing you could say against them was they were into holistic stuff and the cats suffered terribly when they were sick. I did thank god that they had no children as I would have to explain to my young daughter that heather did not have two mommies but the dad was not invited. This is still the great risk that the redefinition of how the nuclear family was the core of society will be mercilessly enforced
Dennis’ comment (7:55am) hits the nail on the head.
To more easily lead, Christianity must be removed because it stresses God and individual conscience over the state. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s has no place in the collective. The rulers want a pliable populace that does what it is told and what better religion to fuse with political rule than islam?
Modern communications have made possible what Lippmann and others preached almost 100 years ago. The ruling elite presume themselves to be in charge. Based upon current events, they indeed are, despite the opinion of a majority.
Lippmann said, “Most men, after a little freedom, have preferred authority with the consoling assurances and the economy of effort it brings.”
The secular ruling elite of the west look down upon islam as just another, albeit better and more efficient way to control the rubes. Something they will easily be able to manipulate and control. I’m not so sure about that. Neo has written here, as well as others elsewhere, about how the left made allegiance with the islamists to overthrow the Shah of Iran. The leftists seriously underestimated their allies and were eliminated.
The elites today have learned nothing. They imagine islam to be tamable and to use it to lend further authority to the rule of the state they envision. Their Fabian Society myths will go up in smoke, but only after the damage is done to civilization.
“So how can we make the argument for Christian and Jewish religious freedom, yet deny it to the barbarous aspects of Islam?”
Some of that stuff is not really Islam. Its Arab cultural tradition (although its been spread along with Islam by Arabs). Seriously. Ergo; I’d be comfortable telling them it won’t be accepted and it’s not part of their own religion.
Even SLR Says:.
“Seriously. Ergo; I’d be comfortable telling them it won’t be accepted and it’s not part of their own religion.”
Interesting. I’m curious about how much time SLR has spent reading the Koran and Hadiths? How does SLR propose to tell people who believe that the Koran is the direct transcript of Allah’s words and that Mohammad’s life is the perfect example every Muslim should emulate that their literal reading of their holy books is wrong?
me: …the distance between Christians and mainstream society is going to grow wider
Ann: Maybe not. After all, a 2013 Quinnipiac poll did find that 60 percent of Catholics support same-sex marriage.
—
US churches are splitting almost across the board on this issue. I predict that one side, disconnected from any pretense of the supernatural will continue to drift leftward and wither from irrelevance. The other will pull together even tighter and learn to live lives set even more apart from the mainstream. Until the current generation, being a Christian has been easy. That’s clearly changing.
Tim P said: “To more easily lead, Christianity must be removed because it stresses God and individual conscience over the state.”
Yes. I guess every religion must have its first commandment. Even the new religion of the statists.
It is all very confusing:
CNN mistakes flag covered with sex toys at gay pride parade for ISIS flag.
There’ll be a reaction.
Not because they want to destroy religion, but because they want acceptance and the rights of marriage that others have. I celebrate with them. I think those are the clear majority here, and not the uber-activist group.
The Gaystapo controls the homo communities much as the Hitler Youth and SS controlled their neighborhoods, or the Stazis used informants and secret police.
It’s not about being a majority, being a majority just means you obey the Authority that the rest of the majority normals obey.
Independent humans are rare, less than 1%. And homos being less than 1% of the pop, has even fewer independent humans in that sample. And those few independent humans, are not the majority, not even of the 1%.
One of the few fronts where the Left have been pushed back are the SFWA/Tor Leftist agents vs VoxDay and Baen author of Monster Hunter International. They got blogs, check em out. If you don’t like the Left smashing your face in on homo marriage, you can still stick it to them, albeit on a different front.
That’s what a war is, after all. It’s chaotic but also fluid, unpredictable, and the fog of war often means that if the enemy appears weak, it’s probably a trap. But no way to figure that out without going through em.
A modest proposal: Go libertarian. Let people marry whoever they want. Get gov’t out of the marriage business. Let religions stick to their principles. Eliminate tax exempt status and the income tax. Institute a flat tax.
Dennis Says:
June 28th, 2015 at 3:49 pm
Even SLR Says:.
‘Interesting. I’m curious about how much time SLR has spent reading the Koran and Hadiths? How does SLR propose to tell people who believe that the Koran is the direct transcript of Allah’s words and that Mohammad’s life is the perfect example every Muslim should emulate that their literal reading of their holy books is wrong?’
Some; and I missed the veil and genital mutilation sections.
Do you have them handy? I could have missed them of course.
Ymarsakar:
The Gaystapo controls the homo communities much as the Hitler Youth and SS controlled their neighborhoods, or the Stazis used informants and secret police.
Really? I have as much disgust for the increasingly statist left as anyone, but this remark is over the top. Where’s your proof? You really don’t know what you are talking about my friend. This kind of remark sounds like something out of the cesspit of Russia or the Balkan states, not America. Get real!
Even SLR:
What makes you think that when Dennis wrote of the “barbarous” parts of Islam that are in the Koran he was referring something like veils or genital mutilation? Although genital mutilation is certainly barbarous, it’s not in the Koran, but plenty of other “barbarous” parts of Islam are. I would imagine Dennis was referring to them, and to the very idea (basic to Islam) of the literal truth of the Koran, as well as to the idea that it would therefore be difficult if not impossible to merely tell Muslims that “their literal reading of their holy books is wrong.”
Even SLR Says:
“Some; and I missed the veil and genital mutilation sections.”
When I asked SLR the questions they were not meant as an attack.
Neo is correct that veiling and genital mutilation which Muslims do to themselves are not my major concerns about Islam. I’ll go even further and raise the probability that throwing homosexual men off rooftops of buildings is not in the Koran. In Iran the leaders are sometimes more merciful by allowing some gay people to undergo sex change operations rather than killing them. Wonderful stuff.
I’m more concerned about Muslim aggression against other people who do not choose Islam and who do not want to be included in their Ummah. The fact that SLR knows that veiling and genital mutilation are not in the Koran leads me to conclude that SLR probably does know that the Koran empowers Muslims to steal, murder and enslave people who are not members of their Ummah and that Muslims.
Sorry about the last sentence. It should conclude that Muslims have done those things with vigor to their neighbors from the very beginning of Islam beginning with Mohammad the template of the perfect Muslim.
Texas Pushes Back Against Gay Marriage Decision
I wonder how many states will follow Texas’ lead?
}}} Neo is correct that veiling and genital mutilation which Muslims do to themselves
If women submit to it, that is their choice. But how many women are defacto forced to do so by their families?
This kind of remark sounds like something out of the cesspit of Russia or the Balkan states, not America. Get real!
Get real, about what? The American Fascist Regime, something you think you’re immune to, is that it?
A modest proposal: Go libertarian. Let people marry whoever they want. Get gov’t out of the marriage business.
Libertarians were the ones who gave the Left cover on this homo Gaystapo build up. When the Left claimed that they were merely fighting for human rights and homo marriage, Libertarians allowed them the cover of this position that was supposed to be about liberty.
Turned out it wasn’t about liberty, so the Libertarians do a reverse and say that the government shouldn’t be in on it to cover up the fact that the Democrats also said the government wouldn’t be in on it when hiding behind the Libertarian position.
The Other Chuck Says:
June 29th, 2015 at 12:10 am
Ymarsakar:
The Gaystapo controls the homo communities much as the Hitler Youth and SS controlled their neighborhoods, or the Stazis used informants and secret police.
Really? I have as much disgust for the increasingly statist left as anyone, but this remark is over the top. Where’s your proof? You really don’t know what you are talking about my friend. This kind of remark sounds like something out of the cesspit of Russia or the Balkan states, not America. Get real!
Really? Get real!:
SAN FRANCISCO – In many ways it is a typical map, showing states, highways, cities and streets.
But also dotting the online display are thousands of red arrows, marking spots from Bryn Mawr, Pa., to Jamacha, Calif., identifying the addresses of donors who supported Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in California.
It is exactly those arrows that concern supporters of the measure, who say they have been regularly harassed since the election – with threatening e-mail messages and sometimes boycotts of their businesses.
“Some gay activists have organized Web sites to actively encourage people to go after supporters of Proposition 8,” said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the proposition. “And giving these people a map to your home or office leaves supporters of Proposition 8 feeling especially vulnerable. Really, it is chilling.”
I guess you’re always ready to turn the other chuck, Chuck!
Ann Coulter met some Matt something or other, newly turned conservative who was a Marine but also a homo porn star at one time in his life. He rejected that kind of homo lifestyle. Know what the Gaystapo tried to do to him?
Either you don’t know or you don’t, either way, there are certain things concerning the Stazi that only people who have studied their methods would figure out.
Correction, second part would be “don’t care”.
Either you don’t know or you don’t, either way, there are certain things concerning the Stazi that only people who have studied their methods would figure out.
‘Everything about everyone’: the depth of Stasi surveillance.
Gay!
I used to be more libertarian on it – live and let live, but it’s obvious to me that “they” won’t let you live as you want. So I cannot remain uncommitted.
re: Division of churches, the # of Catholics supporting SSM: I wouldn’t be surprised at that percentage of support. Many Catholics prefer worshiping the Donkey to the Lamb.
Pope B16 predicted when cardinal that the Church was going to get much smaller. It appears to be on the verge of coming true.
I’m not sure how much we can blame on the conservatives not playing the activist game. After all, this was won in the halls of education and in the entertainment media.
JuliB:
But academia and the media are very very much part of “the activist game.”
IGotBupkis:
Most are children when it (genital mutilation) happens, so of course they are forced because their parents are in control.
I suppose, but it’s nothing I could get up tomorrow and ‘do’. One reason that Eric’s advice has not hit home with me is that I see no practical advice as an example. And how can I effect change? What small things can I do to help out the cause?
I could give examples of gun rights and pro life advice, but cannot seem to wrap my mind around anything comparable. And yes, I’ve gone to some of the websites he’s recommended. I need a Claire Wolf here.
I came back quickly to post a complaint about something so out of our control… Based on an earlier comment, I googled Coulter Matt gay Marine. Everything that came back is left wing spewings, nothing conservative or even neutral (if that even exists). I had a similar thing happen when someone posted a criticism on FB of a conservative legal group who gave advice about homosexual laws in some African country. PAGES and PAGES of criticism – but nothing on the other side. Frankly it scares me.
JuliB:
Organize a group or groups to (a) purchase entertainment with conservative themes; boycott liberal entertainment, and spread the word (b) run for local School Board, get other conservatives to do so.
Of course, many don’t have the temperament for that sort of thing, like running for office (I don’t, for example). But if you do, those are two ideas. Or, encourage people you know who do have the temperament to get more active.
One reason that Eric’s advice has not hit home with me is that I see no practical advice as an example. And how can I effect change? What small things can I do to help out the cause?
You can pick a front where the Left is getting hammered, then weigh in on the part of the heroes leading the effort. Since they at least are competent.
James O’Keefe’s Veritas has had solid results. Also solidly in the IRS target list, although they can’t do much about them given their funding sources.
Also VoxDay and Baen authors vs Hugo/Tor/SFWA/SJWs are another front.
Gamersgate is another thing.
You don’t need your own cause, you can just jump on some other existing bandwagon, for now. Some people know how to fight the Left, and the results are the results.
PAGES and PAGES of criticism — but nothing on the other side. Frankly it scares me.
Use Wikipedia and jump off it to the original sources. The original source would be Ann Coulter’s own meeting or articles about it.
Social media with comments is not a good idea, they are the enemy, for the most part.
Frankly it scares me.
It’s designed to do so. It’s designed to make you feel powerless. It’s made to intimidate, coerce, and use propaganda manipulation to obtain 100% mental domination, mind control, and psychological control.
The Z in Stazi is like Nazi, but also like the German word.
By the 1970s, the Stasi had decided that the methods of overt persecution that had been employed up to that time, such as arrest and torture, were too crude and obvious. It was realised that psychological harassment was far less likely to be recognised for what it was, so its victims, and their supporters, were less likely to be provoked into active resistance, given that they would often not be aware of the source of their problems, or even its exact nature. Zersetzung was designed to side-track and “switch off” perceived enemies so that they would lose the will to continue any “inappropriate” activities.
Tactics employed under Zersetzung generally involved the disruption of the victim’s private or family life. This often included psychological attacks, such as breaking into homes and subtly manipulating the contents, in a form of gaslighting — moving furniture, altering the timing of an alarm, removing pictures from walls or replacing one variety of tea with another. Other practices included property damage, sabotage of cars, purposely incorrect medical treatment, smear campaigns including sending falsified compromising photos or documents to the victim’s family, denunciation, provocation, psychological warfare, psychological subversion, wiretapping, bugging, mysterious phone calls or unnecessary deliveries, even including sending a vibrator to a target’s wife. Usually, victims had no idea that the Stasi were responsible. Many thought that they were losing their minds, and mental breakdowns and suicide could result.
One great advantage of the harassment perpetrated under Zersetzung was that its subtle nature meant that it was able to be plausibly denied. This was important given that the GDR was trying to improve its international standing during the 1970s and 80s, especially in conjunction with the Ostpolitik of West-German chancellor Willy Brandt massively improving relations between the two German states.
Zersetzung
Others use Stasi, I use the z for my own reasons.
http://monsterhunternation.com/tag/sad-puppies/
In a war, it’s important to figure out where your allies and enemies are. Don’t mistake the front lines for the logistics rear. A place with enemies increases your exposure.
In a war, the unit with the most accomplishments are usually at the vanguard, and they get sniped in their back by a bunch of moderate fence sitters talking about their extremism. But they get results, I cannot argue with that.
Egads, the comments are getting paranoid. Time to stop posting.
That was quick. Guy in Time mag calls for eliminating tax exemptions for churches and schools.
http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/
Same edition calls for June 26 to be a national holiday.
How sweet!
And how whacked out.
Another gay wrote in Time, ” don’t get me started on having kids.” Try this clown. Not physically possible. You will be buying them.
Too late Chuck boyo, your name’s already going to be given to the Left’s List. So they’ll take care of you sooner or later.
It’s not something you have the power to stop, any more than you can stop belittling people here.
Weaklings and vagrants like Chuck ask and demand for evidence, when their IQ is not sufficient to even understand what that means to begin with. They act by their programmed behaviors and Leftist dominated triggers, thinking they are allowed freedom. Chuck inherited a freedom, that he has already thrown away by believing in the Left.
The weaklings cannot resist the Left nor do they have the strength to hate the Left. They will be told what to do, and they will Obey their Authorities, as is expected of the majority.
When the Gaystapo orders Chuck to participate in human atrocities…. chances are that Chuch will obey.
The Other Chuck Says:
June 29th, 2015 at 9:59 pm
Egads, the comments are getting paranoid. Time to stop posting….
We shall post:
Democrat Milwaukee County prosecutors tapped the email and text communications of conservative activists as part of a five-year probe aimed at bringing down Republican Gov.Scott Walker.
Stasi!
Chuck should know very well how that work, he is on the informant’s list, or soon will be.