The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Why Keep Feeding the Gay-Rights Tiger, Hoping to Be Eaten Last?

Posted on | February 14, 2014 | 46 Comments

One of the things we must understand about the Left is the essentially totalitarian nature of their ambitions. There is no logical stopping point on the progressive road to the Utopia of Equality that they insist is always ahead of us, a destination never reached.

Grant all their demands today, and they will return tomorrow with a new list of demands. What do they want? More, always more.

Yesterday, a federal judge struck down Virginia’s state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, because obviously (a) the Fourteenth Amendment was intended for such a purpose, and (b) never mind the will of voters expressed in a referendum.

The ruling cites memorable Supreme  Court travesties Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. U.S. — like so many mileposts on the Highway to Hell, and who can argue with such sophistry when it’s dressed up in costumes of legal precedent, bejeweled with a lot of emotional chatter about “loving, intimate and lasting relationships” and “sacred, personal choices”?

Translation: “Damn the Constitution, we’re not in Utopia yet.”

Meanwhile, in Kansas, the state House of Representatives approved a bill intended to impede the March Toward Utopia in the name of “religious liberty,” inspiring  an eruption of hyperbole about “vicious discrimination” and “anti-gay segregation.”

Willkommen, Herr Chamberlain. Welcome to Munich. Today you will cede the Sudetenland. Tomorrow, we’ll demand the world.”

 

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • M. Thompson

    Exactly the problem. Since when did spreading VD become a right?

  • NeoWayland

    Loving v. Virginia, 1967.

  • Zohydro
  • Anchovy

    Someday in the future it will be considered rebellious in your face behavior for two heterosexual people to get married and then have sex.

    Who knows how far that kind of insanity could go. Next thing you know people will be getting jobs, paying taxes, buying homes and raising children in a family environment.

    Shocking!

    We might even have to pass legislation, or at least find a sympathetic judge to insure their right to do so.

  • Zohydro

    Apples v. Oranges, 2014…

  • NeoWayland

    *shrugs*

    Say what you want.

    The “justifications against” read remarkably the same.

    It’s not a matter of what people vote, it’s a matter of individual rights.

  • RS

    Progressives are always very quick to scream “the ‘slippery slope’ is a fallacy!!!!111!!!!!.” That’s of course true, but only if there is a clearly defined and inviolate endpoint to the philosophical path. Progressives have never defined such an endpoint, which is why we had to deal with the #Free Kate dolts and why Pederasts and Pedophiles are coming out of the woodwork seeking “understanding.”

    This gets back to point I tried to make in an earlier thread. The people who now scream about gay marriage destroying marriage and the family–which is no doubt correct–were nowhere to be found when society was contemplating no-fault divorce. This endgame became inevitable the moment society decided to stop vigorously protecting the foundations of its existence: Traditional Marriage, Parenthood and the Family. As history has shown, even the slightest attempt to weaken those institutions led to ever greater assaults.

  • RS

    Your assertion assumes a fact not proven, towit that there is a “right” to engage in certain sexual behavior and to require society to approve and sanction it.

  • Socialism: Organized Evil

    “Equality”, as sought by the worshipers of liberalism, is only possible at the lowest common denominator.

  • Socialism: Organized Evil

    Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter 2:


    On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.

    The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

    Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

    But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

    The religion of liberalism isn’t that much different than the religion of communism.

  • Socialism: Organized Evil

    According to CDC Surveillance statistics, sodomites account for about 70% of new HIV cases:

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/surveillance/incidence/

  • Socialism: Organized Evil

    There is no such thing as sodomite marriage.

  • Socialism: Organized Evil

    What would it take to fight a global war against liberalism? Eradicate the ideology once and for all? The Russians would be valuable allies in that, methinks.

  • Pingback: Jerrold Nadler: Stupid vs. Evil | Regular Right Guy

  • Quartermaster

    Most people did not understand the implications of no fault divorce. Ironically, that ball was started rolling by Ron Reagan as Kali Gov because of what his first wife did to him in divorcing him. It got really nasty. If he had been able to see what would come of it eventually, I doubt he would have signed that bill.

  • Matt_SE

    Leftism is absurd, but conservative have their own hang-up: fetishism of “the Law.” Even unjust laws.
    This only ends with the governed withdrawing their consent, i.e. civil disobedience.

    Until we’re willing to do that, we will continue to be led around by the nose. Because the left will never stop.

  • Socialism: Organized Evil

    Each of us must understand that the religion of liberalism/marxism/socialism/communism has three key objectives:

    - Destruction of the family
    - Destruction of private property
    - Destruction of Christianity

    Knowing our adversary is the first step to defeating our adversary.

    Many thanks to TOM and everyone else in this perennial war.

  • SDN

    And the Left’s response to “civil disobedience” is concentration camps/gulags. The only rights you have are the ones you are willing to kill for.

  • Pingback: Joe Biden Fails Teleprompter 101… Again | Regular Right Guy

  • SDN

    Only to the illiterate.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    Judge Arenda Wright Allen, who issued this ruling, was appointed to the bench by Barack Obama.

    If white people had voted in the same turnout percentage in 2012 that they did in 2004, Obama would not have been reelected and would not be appointing more judges today, despite the large minority/youth turnout.

    Leftists are beginning to clamor for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire so Obama can appoint a young leftist to the Supreme Court while he still has Harry Reid controlling the Senate to confirm whoever he wants.

    Elections matter.

  • Lightwave

    Pretty soon thanks to judicial activism, everyone will be a member of a “protected class”.

    Well, everyone but White, Christian men.

    “And when everyone’s super…no one is.”

    –Syndrome, The Incredibles

  • Zohydro

    Would I be denounced to suggest that most of those “heterosexual” cases of HIV infection are likely acquired through precisely the same sorts of sexual behaviour in which the homosexuals acquired theirs?

  • Socialism: Organized Evil

    IMO, we have an obligation to the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may make us feel initially.

    Call me a throwback.

  • http://deadrepublicanparty.wordpress.com/ rmnixondeceased

    They are one in the same …

  • http://deadrepublicanparty.wordpress.com/ rmnixondeceased

    Not only approve and sanction, but force it to be taught in the schools, practioners to have special rights and the practice to be forced upon our children. The heteropatriarchy is to be replaced with the homopatriarchy through enforcement of homonormative behaviors.
    We are so doomed … time to rise!

  • NeoWayland

    Just to save time, let me say that people’s rights exist with or without society’s sanction or approval. At it’s most basic, the only reason a society or a nation should exist is to defend those rights. For the sake of argument, I’ll agree that one person’s rights stop when they infringe on another’s, but you and I won’t agree on what “infringe” means. You’ve already brought “society” in as a player, and I’ll tell you that it’s none of society’s business.

    That is, unless you agree to always apply 90 days before having sex using only approved positions 1, 4, & 5. With a doctor’s signed certification, you might attempt position 7. With a letter from your minister and countersigned by your local Department of Intimacy, your might get a special wavier for position 3. You must wait for permission. No unauthorized sex now, society must sanction it. Oh, and remember that position 2 is strictly forbidden.

  • http://deadrepublicanparty.wordpress.com/ rmnixondeceased

    On the downlow of course, can’t let the marital partner know that juniors sex-ed homework has piqued interest in what the publik schools require as acceptable sexual behaviors (hint: NOT heterosexuality).

  • NeoWayland

    See, this is an issue when a religious rite (not right) is “approved” by government. People start believing that their religion should have the force of law backing it up and that their faith should always shape the law.

    Then government changes the rules and definitions without consulting the religion. Government demands that religion complies with the new rules, no matter what. Now the law shapes the religion.

  • NeoWayland

    Illiterate, hmm?

    History books at ten paces then.

  • NeoWayland

    I don’t think it should be taught in the public schools.

    But I don’t think traditional marriage should be taught in the public schools either.

  • RS

    You argue in bad faith. The argument is not about what people do in private; it is about sanctioning gay “marriage.” Your response is typical. When one asks from where the “right” to a definition emanates, suddenly the discussion shifts to ludicrous examples of “permission.”

  • Zohydro

    Divorce in general, “no-fault” divorce specifically is morally wrong… I don’t believe in divorce… If society must have divorce, then it should be painfully difficult and rare—particularly when children are involved!

  • Zohydro

    Marriage isn’t a rite or a right! It is a social institution that transcends time, ideology, and culture… The “science is settled” on this one, mate!

    Humans, whatever else we may be, are a preferentially and appropriately monogamous species…

    Whether one is a Stone Age animist headhunter from Amazonia or an atheist pomosexual metrofag from Boston, it should be clear from biology and history that the foundation and perpetuation of any society is established only in the union of One Man and One Woman!

  • Pingback: The Daley Gator | Why I struggle with the issue of Gay marriage

  • NeoWayland

    No, not bad faith.

    Rights.

    Which do not emanate from a state, nor do they require state sanction or approval.

    Which was the whole point of that bit of theater.

    It’s not a right unless the other guy has it too.

  • NeoWayland

    While I would love to see what proof you have that Stone Age people practiced only heterosexual monogamy, I have to say your history is off.

    You don’t even have to look very hard.

  • torrentprime

    “the practice to be forced upon our children”
    Children are being forced to perform gay intercourse? Where?

  • torrentprime

    “Homework” made kids want to have gay intercourse? Why doesn’t that work for math or science?
    LOLOL

  • http://deadrepublicanparty.wordpress.com/ rmnixondeceased

    Because that isn’t the end result that is designed into the Common Core curricula.

  • http://deadrepublicanparty.wordpress.com/ rmnixondeceased

    In your living room whilst you are at work (or standing in the line to buy liquor with your foodstamps).

  • Pingback: ZION'S TRUMPET » People! This Ain’t About Gay Rights. It’s About Total Control!

  • RS

    Again, the argument has nothing to do with behaviors, in which anyone is free to engage. The argument is about whether society is required to sanction those behaviors. Where is there a “right” to social sanction and approval as opposed to mere social indifference? You refuse to answer that question. Instead, you consistently attempt to change argument to something its not.

  • NeoWayland

    With my very first post on this thread, I pointed out that 50 years ago a sizable part of American society refused to “sanction” interracial marriage.

    As long as they are consenting adults, it’s none of society’s business. Just as you don’t care what a mosque in Chicago thinks about your relationships, or if T.D. Jakes approves of your shoes.

    It’s not what society sanctions. It’s the freedom people have.

  • NeoWayland

    There’s a quote that applies, and I wish “both” sides would take it to heart.

    “Everybody has asked the question, ‘What shall we do with the Negro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!”
    — Frederick Douglass

    Society should neither help nor hinder. Let people make their own choices and live with the consequences.

  • james james

    only in a land where we are all free to live how we would like so many dont believe that… but you all agree that you should do and live how you want on your own land in your own home and you would not want anyone to tell you otherwise. how can you agree with this is you think that. i mean when you say things like this it only helps to build the bars to cage you will put yourself in. when you can tell one group how to live then it become okay for another group to tell you how to live as well. or when you say things like this if you all get what you want if gays were to be rounded up and blamed and punished for what you think is thier fault. when you find something you dont like about your new society they may label you gay and just sweep you away as well. to agree with this is to take one step closer to handing back your own personal freedom and opinion. seriously think about it can you really tell who is gay and who isnt? no you cannot all the time. and when people live and hide who they are and how they really want to be then there lies the real problem and when things can go really wrong. and i dont know in what school they teach anyone to be gay to think about all the people who are young and gay and feel like they have to be one way when they are not. that is what hurts. he married you (she married you) but really they dont love you like you think. but they feel like they had to do what people thought they should and then you are left holding a fucked up bag.

    after reading a few of these i think that whoever started this is sad and mad at others alot for what they think someone else has.

    when you die and go the heaven and you see someone there you didnt like in life or think should be there what will you do… get mad complain and leave?…..or will you just accpeted the shit and keep moving on.