Colonel_Reb
Hall of Famer
Richard Spencer nails it.
In a country where Equality (treating everyone the same) has become a
civil religion, and where Discrimination (recognizing differences
amongst people) is the most despicable act a person can commit,
restricting marriage to opposite sex couples was never going to last.
In fact, the only real shock is that it took this long to come about.
Don't get me wrong. Homo marriage is sick. It's perverted and
disgusting. But given the 14th Amendment and well established
principles of "civil rights"Â laws and jurisprudence, and our national
commitment to the never ending pursuit of Equality and the relentless
war on Discrimination, there was no way to stop it.
Several years ago, it looked like it would probably take a couple
decades or so to make gay marriage the law of the land in all 50 states.
Now it looks as if gay marriage might become legal nationwide in just a
year or two. The recent ruling on Prop 8 looks like it's headed for
the Supreme Court, and many legal experts are saying that the opinion
will probably sway Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the Court, into
voting with the liberal wing and nullifying all laws against gay
marriage throughout America. Not that Kennedy needs much prodding in
that direction. Back in 2003 he wrote the decision in Lawrence vs.
Texas, in which the court ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual
behavior are unconstitutional. In his written opinion he went on to say
(in so many words) that nothing in the ruling should be construed as
supporting gay marriage. As Antonin Scalia pointed out in his dissent,
that was nothing but intellectual dishonesty on Kennedy's part. Given
the content and reasoning of the majority's ruling, there was no way gay
marriage wouldn't follow. It would have to:
<blockquote>
At the end of its opinionâ€"after having laid waste the
foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudenceâ€"the Court says that the
present case "does not involve whether the government must give formal
recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."Â
Ante, at 17. Do not believe it. More illuminating than
this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed
by an earlier passage in the Court's opinion, which notes the
constitutional protections afforded to "personal decisions relating to
marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child
rearing, and education,"Â and then declares that "
ersons in a
homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as
heterosexual persons do."Â Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today's opinion
dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a
distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions,
insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral
disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest"Â
for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the
Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality
finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the
conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more
enduring,"Â ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for
denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he
liberty protected by the Constitution,"Â ibid.? Surely not the
encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are
allowed to marry. This case "does not involve"Â the issue of homosexual
marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have
nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as
the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.</blockquote>
No, it doesn't look good. But you can't tell that to Maggie
Gallagher and the rest of the Protect Marriage crowd. They're boldly
predicting that SCOTUS will overturn this recent ruling on appeal.
Well, that looks unlikely, but even if they do, it's only a matter of
time before homo marriage wins. Most people below the age of 30 support
gay marriage and regard opposition to it as bigotry and hate, so
there's no way it's not coming eventually. And look at the lack of
outrage among all groups at this recent ruling. Most people, even
conservatives, don't care about stopping homo marriage, in large part
because they've imbibed all this stuff about how wonderful Equality is
and how horrible Discrimination is. Yes, the thought of two men having
sex disgusts them, but they feel guilty about their disgust, because
that's not very Equality minded. Thirty years ago people would have
been organizing to impeach Judge Walker.
Today, though? People just yawn. I wrote the other day about the
National Organization for Marriage's summer bus tour to stop gay
marriage. In Columbus, Ohio, 20 people came out to "stand for marriage"Â
with the NOM bus and speakers. Last week, it was the same story in
Atlanta, where again, a mere 20 people showed up to support NOM.
That's in spite of the fact that ATL is heavily black, and the family
values crowd is always telling us that issued like abortion and gay
marriage are extremely important to blacks.
Maggie Gallagher and NOM thought they had the perfect strategy to win
the battle over gay marriage by claiming that gay marriage violates
civil rights. They got a couple of shucking and jiving black "bishops"Â
to run around yelling that "the civil right to vote on marriage"Â is
being taken away. So opposition to gay marriage isn't based on bigotry
and hate as the gays claim, but simply concern for civil rights, you
see.
Which is odd, because these same folks always praise the SCOTUS
decision in Loving vs. Virginia, which invalidated state laws banning
interracial marriage.
Why didn't white people back in the 1960s have the "civil right to
vote on marriage"Â, Maggie? Oh yeah, because they were racists, and
their moral beliefs about restricting marriage really were bigotry and
hate, but your moral beliefs about restricting marriage are high minded
and principled!
Yeah, it's hard to believe that approach didn't work in Martin Luther
King's America where Equality and Non-Discrimination are the highest
moral values.http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2010/08/11/richard-spencer-on-the-inevitability-of-gay-marriage/
In a country where Equality (treating everyone the same) has become a
civil religion, and where Discrimination (recognizing differences
amongst people) is the most despicable act a person can commit,
restricting marriage to opposite sex couples was never going to last.
In fact, the only real shock is that it took this long to come about.
Don't get me wrong. Homo marriage is sick. It's perverted and
disgusting. But given the 14th Amendment and well established
principles of "civil rights"Â laws and jurisprudence, and our national
commitment to the never ending pursuit of Equality and the relentless
war on Discrimination, there was no way to stop it.
Several years ago, it looked like it would probably take a couple
decades or so to make gay marriage the law of the land in all 50 states.
Now it looks as if gay marriage might become legal nationwide in just a
year or two. The recent ruling on Prop 8 looks like it's headed for
the Supreme Court, and many legal experts are saying that the opinion
will probably sway Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the Court, into
voting with the liberal wing and nullifying all laws against gay
marriage throughout America. Not that Kennedy needs much prodding in
that direction. Back in 2003 he wrote the decision in Lawrence vs.
Texas, in which the court ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual
behavior are unconstitutional. In his written opinion he went on to say
(in so many words) that nothing in the ruling should be construed as
supporting gay marriage. As Antonin Scalia pointed out in his dissent,
that was nothing but intellectual dishonesty on Kennedy's part. Given
the content and reasoning of the majority's ruling, there was no way gay
marriage wouldn't follow. It would have to:
<blockquote>
At the end of its opinionâ€"after having laid waste the
foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudenceâ€"the Court says that the
present case "does not involve whether the government must give formal
recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."Â
Ante, at 17. Do not believe it. More illuminating than
this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed
by an earlier passage in the Court's opinion, which notes the
constitutional protections afforded to "personal decisions relating to
marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child
rearing, and education,"Â and then declares that "
ersons in a
homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as
heterosexual persons do."Â Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today's opinion
dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a
distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions,
insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral
disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest"Â
for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the
Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality
finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the
conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more
enduring,"Â ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for
denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he
liberty protected by the Constitution,"Â ibid.? Surely not the
encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are
allowed to marry. This case "does not involve"Â the issue of homosexual
marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have
nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as
the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.</blockquote>
No, it doesn't look good. But you can't tell that to Maggie
Gallagher and the rest of the Protect Marriage crowd. They're boldly
predicting that SCOTUS will overturn this recent ruling on appeal.
Well, that looks unlikely, but even if they do, it's only a matter of
time before homo marriage wins. Most people below the age of 30 support
gay marriage and regard opposition to it as bigotry and hate, so
there's no way it's not coming eventually. And look at the lack of
outrage among all groups at this recent ruling. Most people, even
conservatives, don't care about stopping homo marriage, in large part
because they've imbibed all this stuff about how wonderful Equality is
and how horrible Discrimination is. Yes, the thought of two men having
sex disgusts them, but they feel guilty about their disgust, because
that's not very Equality minded. Thirty years ago people would have
been organizing to impeach Judge Walker.
Today, though? People just yawn. I wrote the other day about the
National Organization for Marriage's summer bus tour to stop gay
marriage. In Columbus, Ohio, 20 people came out to "stand for marriage"Â
with the NOM bus and speakers. Last week, it was the same story in
Atlanta, where again, a mere 20 people showed up to support NOM.
That's in spite of the fact that ATL is heavily black, and the family
values crowd is always telling us that issued like abortion and gay
marriage are extremely important to blacks.
Maggie Gallagher and NOM thought they had the perfect strategy to win
the battle over gay marriage by claiming that gay marriage violates
civil rights. They got a couple of shucking and jiving black "bishops"Â
to run around yelling that "the civil right to vote on marriage"Â is
being taken away. So opposition to gay marriage isn't based on bigotry
and hate as the gays claim, but simply concern for civil rights, you
see.
Which is odd, because these same folks always praise the SCOTUS
decision in Loving vs. Virginia, which invalidated state laws banning
interracial marriage.
Why didn't white people back in the 1960s have the "civil right to
vote on marriage"Â, Maggie? Oh yeah, because they were racists, and
their moral beliefs about restricting marriage really were bigotry and
hate, but your moral beliefs about restricting marriage are high minded
and principled!
Yeah, it's hard to believe that approach didn't work in Martin Luther
King's America where Equality and Non-Discrimination are the highest
moral values.http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2010/08/11/richard-spencer-on-the-inevitability-of-gay-marriage/