Will the defenders of marriage be treated like bigots? Will our society and our laws treat Americans who believe that marriage is the union of husband and wife as if they were the moral equivalent of racists?
Perhaps not. Think about the abortion debate. Ever since Roe v. Wade, our law has granted a right to abortion. Yet, for the most part, pro-life citizens are not treated as though they are “anti-woman” or “anti-health.” Those are just slurs from extremists. Even those who disagree with the pro-life cause respect it and recognize that it has a legitimate place in the debate over public policy.
And—this is crucial—it’s because of that respect that pro-choice leaders generally respect the religious liberty and conscience rights of their pro-life fellow citizens. Until the insurance-coverage mandates imposed under Obamacare, at least, there was wide agreement that pro-life citizens shouldn’t be forced by the government to be complicit in what they see as the evil of abortion. Pro-life taxpayers, for example, haven’t been forced to fund elective abortions, and pro-life doctors haven’t been forced to perform them.
Will the same tolerance be shown to those who believe the truth about marriage? Will the government respect their rights of conscience and religious liberty? It doesn’t look good. So far, the trend has been in the opposite direction. We must now work to reverse it.
For years, the Left’s refrain has been that people who oppose same-sex marriage are just like people who opposed interracial marriage—and that the law should treat them as it treats racists. Indeed, The New York Times reported that while the amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court in Obergefell were evenly divided between supporters and opponents of state marriage laws, no major law firm filed a brief in support of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. “In dozens of interviews, lawyers and law professors said the imbalance in legal firepower in the same-sex marriage cases resulted from a conviction among many lawyers that opposition to such unions is bigotry akin to racism.”
Read more at The Federalist…
A while back one of my sons commented that it was Hispanic Heritage Month. He noticed that there seems to be only a select few “heritages” that get a month, and asked me if there was an “Asian Heritage Month”. I explained that since Asian-Americans as a group tend to have higher than average income and manage to get into the better colleges in greater proportion than their percentage of the population, they tend to be ignored as a cultural group. Jews seem to have the same problem. Their success is deemed a disqualifier for recognition of their contributions to the history of the nation. It makes no sense why their culture, heritage and contributions would be any less than other groups simply because they have a better comprehension of how to utilize the opportunities available to all Americans, but that is how some feel they should be treated. What is observed during Jewish-American Heritage Month (May) is holocaust awareness, important, but hardly the sum total of Jewish heritage or contributions to American society. So why observe only some or part of some heritages? The cruelty of condescension masquerading as charity
Dick Gregory commented in his biography about one of his more painful memories as a child.
There was shame in going to the Worthy Boys Annual Christmas Dinner for you and your kind, because everybody knew what a worthy boy was. Why couldn’t they just call it the Boys Annual Dinner, why’d they have to give it a name? There was shame in wearing the brown and orange and white plaid mackinaw the welfare gave to 3,000 boys. Why’d it have to be the same for everybody so when you walked down the street the people could see you were on relief?
It seems obvious that if Heritage Months are handed out to only those cultural groups Liberals feel are “oppressed” then it isn’t really an honor as much as a condescending trinket that serves the ultimate purpose of making some people feel more smug about themselves for giving the “unfortunate” and few pennies, rather than stopping to see what they actually need. What they don’t need is for their heritage to be treated as some pitiful thing to be gushed over as someone would ooh and ah at a 3-year-old’s crayon drawing.
What it boils down to are the two views of American culture and society.
For a long time most Americans saw our nation as a melting pot. Immigrants would come, expecting to blend into the culture at large, but also adding to the overall distinctiveness of our culture. Gennaro Lombardi came to America from Italy. He learned our language and adopted our way of living, but, he contributed to our culture. In the early part of the 20th century he started selling one of his favorite foods he’d enjoyed in Italy. It was so well liked, he expanded and others began making it too. Lombardi introduced pizza to America, and it’s now become almost a national icon. But pizza remains pizza, so the melting pot imagery is not all that accurate.
A mulligan stew is a dish made from whatever is handy. The ingredients vary depending on what’s available. A good cook can make a mulligan stew taste pretty good. I’ve tried my hand at it myself a few times. It’s a fun exercise for anyone who feels they have the culinary talent.
The Mulligan Stew approach sees people as ingredients, flavoring the over all culture. Each contributing culture adds their own flavor to produce a result that brings out the best of all those contributing. If part of the culture an immigrant brings with them is good enough, it saturates the whole, just as Lombardi’s pizza is now an inextricable part of American culture. Our letters are Roman, our numbers are Arabic, our weekdays are Norse. Our breakfasts are African (cous-cous, Americanized as Cream-of-Wheat), Scottish (oatmeal, which used to be called porridge). Our other meals have origins that span the globe. Even our language is a collection of the most useful words we could find from every culture imaginable. (That’s why English tends to be one of the hardest languages to learn, the patterns are so inconsistent). Our music combines the best of Europe as well as Africa. The marriage of classical music and jazz brought about the songs we still listen to from the 60s, 70s and 80s. But it all—food, music, language, everything—flows together to make a versatile, thriving culture of its own.
But some time back some people decided they didn’t like that idea. They didn’t want to be open to accepting change from other cultures. They wanted walls, boundaries, fences to keep other cultures from “polluting” what they felt was their own. They believed America should be more like a smorgasbord, where each dish was kept separate, served separate and eaten separate. They envisioned an America full of cultural bubbles, each clearly separated from others. To make that concept more palatable they called it “multiculturalism” to pretend it was open to all cultures and hide the reality that its purpose was to maintain the separation of cultures. The problem is, the result is actually not a true smorgasbord, but only the illusion of one. As cultural bubbles are created and boundaries enforced, the choice that is the key element of a smorgasbord vanishes.
Now we see the result of the division caused by the “multiculturalism” mindset. As they created cultural bubbles, they then began to punish those that wouldn’t go along. The reason Asians and Jews thrive? They blend, while maintaining enough of a cultural distinctiveness to be able to offer the benefits of it to the population at large. But that’s not good “multiculturalism”. Bubbles can’t blend. And so we have no Asian Heritage month or Jewish Heritage Month that actually acknowledge all of Jewish heritage.
Our battle with insane immigration policies and enforcement is a result of the conflict of cultural views. Since illegal immigrants rarely join the culture at large, the “multiculturalists” see them as no threat. But the rest of us see a segregated group that is robbed of the best of what America has to offer, because it’s become too easy for them to sneak in than enter legally. The legal route encourages blending, the illegal route discourages it. So is there any wonder Liberals are so opposed to enforcement of laws against illegal immigration?
We only thought we won the fight to end segregation, but the segregationists simply changed its name—to multiculturalism.
Originally posted April 9th, 2008 at JackLewis.net.
Commentators and others have understandably linked the decisions coming in quick succession out of Ferguson, Missouri and New York City. Yet voters apparently see key distinctions between the two cases.
By a 22-point margin, they agree with the grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri not to seek criminal charges against a white police officer in the shooting death of a black teenage robbery suspect (55 percent agree vs. 33 percent disagree).
The reverse is true for the grand jury decision in New York: by 30 points, most disagree with the decision not to seek criminal charges against a white officer in the chokehold death of a black man stopped for selling loose cigarettes (27 percent agree vs. 57 percent disagree).
Large majorities of black voters disagree with the decisions in Ferguson (83 percent) and New York (90 percent). For white voters, a majority agrees with the decision in Ferguson (65 percent), while just over half disagree with the outcome in New York (51 percent).
Read the full article at FoxNews.com.
Less than 3 percent of the U.S. population identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday in the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans’ sexual orientation.
The National Health Interview Survey, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.
The overwhelming majority of adults, 96.6 percent, labeled themselves as straight in the 2013 survey. An additional 1.1 percent declined to answer, responded “I don’t know the answer” or said they were “something else.”
The fraudulent “Kinsey Report” claimed that homosexuals comprised 10% of the population. However in this study homosexuals were lumped with bisexuals to barely reach 3%.
For a group representing only 1.6% of the population homosexuals have a massive power hold on society. When 1.6% of the population can control the courts and impose their own agenda on the rest of the nation, even to the point of redefining marriage–it’s hard to take them seriously when they claim to be an “oppressed” minority.
SOURCE: Washington Post.
A new study finds that the harsh new carbon emissions rules President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency released this month will hurt the middle class far more than the rich. However, while the new rules will cause the middle class to take a hit, America’s poorest will be hit hardest of all.
The study by The Manhattan Institute discovered that the top 20% of earners pay only 4% of their income on energy while the bottom 20% pay a whopping 24%. This means the massive hikes in electricity rates expected under the new rules will disproportionately affect the poor.
The study discovered that “those in the lowest fifth of income earners spend the greatest share of their incomes on energy (defined as natural gas, electricity, and gasoline and motor oil). Earners in the lowest income quintile spend 24 percent of their pre-tax income on energy, while those in the highest income quintile spend 4 percent—the same as in 2012. Even though high-earners spend more on net, it is the poor who will have their budgets squeezed as they struggle to pay for gas and electricity.”
Even while Obama’s tough new standards will hurt our most vulnerable citizens, the study also finds that the EPA’s new rules won’t really do a thing to stop the very global warming that Obama is worried about.
Read the full article at Breitbart.com.
On the heels of Jon Stewart’s mockery of Harry Reid, comes another strong rebuke of Reid’s Koch Brothers rhetoric — this time from Daniel Schulman, a senior editor at Mother Jones, and author of the new book, Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America’s Most Powerful and Private Dynasty.
During a recent interview on NPR’s Fresh Air, host Terry Gross asked the reporter and author about Reid’s over-the-top attacks, and Schulman responded, saying
You know, I think it’s a very dicey strategy by Reid. He has actually come out and called the Koch Brothers un-American. Now, that’s kind of an absurd thing to say. And it’s almost McCarthyite rhetoric. From my vantage point, I think the Democrats have really gone overboard in hammering the Kochs in the way that they have. I’m not sure that this is going to be a very successful election strategy.
Read the full article at The Daily Caller.