[June 30, 2015 · Tom Garrett]
Last Friday’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges represents the culmination of a perfectly executed public-relations campaign.
It is impossible not to be impressed by what this activist-driven effort accomplished—I mean in real terms, not the unserious victory slogans of the campaign itself.
In no particular order, it:
1. Successfully and fundamentally transformed the definition of “marriage,” and did so in a way that portrayed efforts to preserve traditional marriage as the novelty, rather than as the millennia-old status quo.
2. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public that there is only one side in this debate, despite the fact that the side claiming the monopoly had only existed in any meaningful form for perhaps 20 years.
3. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public that race and sexual orientation are directly analogous.
4. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public (and jurists) that there is no possible argument against gay marriage—to the point where federal judges found that not permitting same-sex marriage is definitionally irrational, and had prominent left-leaning outlets calling the dissents simply “crazy.”
5. Successfully branded opponents as simple “bigots” for daring to hold a different view on a live political issue, going so far as to take punitive action against those who did not adopt the “correct” viewpoint.
6. Successfully portrayed the battle as, literally, love versus hate.
7. Successfully accomplished all of the above in about a decade.
The magnitude of it is staggering.
Agree or disagree with the result, the sheer, total dominance with which their opposition was dealt defeat after defeat, constantly being depicted as evil and intellectually bankrupt—even when most of the public was still in favor of traditional marriage—is incredible.
How did this happen?
Briefly: Narcissism by those terrified of being on the dreaded “wrong side of history,” a relentless emphasis on effective emotional appeals and feelings as a basis for law, and a tireless media that was the movement’s greatest ally framing the debate in terms favorable to the non-traditional side.
It’s that last feature that is particularly fascinating.
The great failure of the modern media is its inability to distinguish for its audience between ideological arguments and judicial arguments. Many rank-and-file journos don’t have the requisite skill or education to explain those distinctions. Those who possess that ability are not particularly inclined to use it, because to do so would undermine the possibility that their preferred outcome would become reality (as it did today).
To most SSM advocates, the “how” didn’t matter. They focus only on ends, not means.
Read more at TheAxisOfEgo.com…
In his dissent from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared that same-sex marriage is a right, Justice Samuel Alito said the court had falsely likened opposition to same-sex marriage to racism and that its decision “will be used to vilify Americans unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”
Alito warned that in the wake of the court’s ruling, Americans who dare to publicly express views in favor the traditional understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman will risk recrimination.
“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools,” Alito wrote.
“By imposing its own views on the entire country,” he said, “the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.”
Read more at CNSNews.com…
Although gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states, don’t expect to see long lines of homosexuals applying for marriage licenses (especially after the initial publicity-seeking flurry is over). After 10 years of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, The Institute For Marriage and Public Policy commissioned research into the question: What has the demand for same-sex marriage turned out to be among same-sex couples? The answer: “Gay marriage is relatively rare.” The central statistics are:
Why so little take-up of same-sex marriage?
Vera Bergkamp, head of a Dutch gay rights organization, says there are three main reasons for the lack of nuptial enthusiasm among gay couples:
Less pressure from family and friends, fewer gay couples marrying to have children than their straight counterparts, and a more individualist, less family‐orientated mindset among many homosexuals.
Why then has so much time, money, and effort been invested in a gay marriage drive that that will only result in a small percent of a tiny percent actually being married?
Gay marriage is not primarily about gay marriage, it is mainly about silencing gay consciences. But there’s a second reason. Gay marriage is also about silencing Christians.
Read more at HeadHeartHand.org…
While the odds are stacked in the short-term against Christians who oppose same-sex marriage, they are “not going to simply surrender” their views because of Friday’s Supreme Court ruling, since they did not make them up in the first place, an evangelical leader said Sunday.
“People have to understand that people who hold my view based on deeply-held religious convictions aren’t going to simply surrender those things. We can’t,” Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission told CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
“For us to change our views on marriage and sexuality would mean repudiating what we believe has been handed to us by Jesus and His apostles,” he continued. “We didn’t make up our views on marriage and sexuality, and we can’t unmake them.”
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling declaring that same-sex marriage is a right, Moore said evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics, Orthodox and other people of faith would continue to hold their views on marriage and sexuality, believing those views to be “in the common good.”
Read more at CNSNews.com…
On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee considered the bill making appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. The legislation contains a number of important pro-life policies and Democrat Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz filed an amendment to strike the conscience protections contained in Sec. 530 of the appropriations bill.
The language in that section comes from a pro-life bill, H.R. 940, the Healthcare Conscience Rights Act, and provides relief from the conscience violations imposed by the HHS Preventive Services Mandate. It also provides protections for pro-life churches in California who are fighting them own battle against being forced to pay for abortions.
The conscience protection language offers full exemption from Obamacare’s Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate and ensures protections for individuals and healthcare entities that refuse to provide, pay for, or refer patients to abortion providers because of their deeply held beliefs.
The legislation would also specifically address the unlawful violation of religious freedom in California, where the state Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) issued a directive requiring that all insurance plans offered on the state exchange include coverage for abortions, including plans provided by churches, religious entities, and others with conscionable objections to such procedures.
Fortunately, the amendment failed by a vote of 31-20, largely along party lines with Republicans and Rep. Cuellar (D-TX) voting to protect pro-life conscience rights and Democrats voting for the amendment to violate them.
Read more at LifeNews.com…
All symbols of the Confederacy are rapidly disappearing from stores, websites and the public square in the wake of last week’s racially charged shooting in a Charleston, S.C., church, but the purge of some allegedly hateful icons has spared memorabilia linked to some of history’s most infamous mass murderers, some critics are charging.
Amazon.com has now banned all Confederate battle flag items from being sold on its site, but the massive e-commerce site continues to allow the sale of dozens of apparel items featuring communist mass murderers such as Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Che Guevara, prompting some to accuse the site and others banning Confederate imagery of hypocrisy.
“If Amazon is removing the Confederate flag from its offerings, the logical and principled decision is to stop selling any promotional material, including T-shirts, of Che Guevara or any mass killer,” said Maria Werlau, executive director of the Free Society Project. “It is very painful particularly to the loved ones of Guevara’s victims as well as offensive to the Cuban people who continue to suffer repression and abhorrent human rights’ abuses by the system he helped create and direct.”
Amazon.com did not respond to a request for comment. Other sites have been accused of similar hypocrisy. Apple Computer has now banned all apps that show a Confederate flag, regardless of the context, but continues to allow dozens of apps that involve the Soviet Union. One Apple app called “15 Soviet” promises in its description to inform users of “the history of one of the greatest states of the century – the USSR.”
Read more at FoxNews.com…
Calls for Hillary Clinton to allow a third party to examine her private server grew louder Friday following revelations that she had withheld more than a dozen Benghazi-related emails from the State Department.
“Secretary Clinton’s failure to turn over all Benghazi and Libya documents is the reason why we have been calling for an independent, third party review of her server,” Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., a member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, told the Washington Examiner.
“Her unusual email arrangement with herself allowed for Secretary Clinton to pick and choose which emails she deemed work related, and now we know that she failed to be honest and forthcoming with those emails to both the Select Committee and the State Department that were subpoenaed,” Westmoreland added.
A State Department spokesman said Friday the agency had no plans to launch a probe of Clinton’s private server, on which she hosted both her personal and work-related emails.
Read more at the Washington Examiner…
A 14-year old girl was babysitting her 3-year old niece on June 19, and took her to the playground at her middle school, Herfurth Elementary School, in Rowlett, TX, along with a friend. When she sat down at some tables, she was immediately set upon by a group of Black students (2 female, 2 male) who told them they “didn’t belong there.”
One source revealed to TRN that a racial slur was uttered against one or both the White girls, although police have said there is “no evidence of a hate crime” involved with the attack.
The Dallas Morning News reported that the family does not want to issue public statements for fear of further retribution.
There is also a report that one or both of the 14-year old Black girls are involved in a local gang and were enforcing a “Blacks-only territory” in the schoolyard, although he have been unable to confirm this, as no arrests have yet been made.
The toddler, whose head hit the pavement below when her aunt was grabbed by the assailant, suffered a serious injury that required numerous stitches
Read more at TopRightNews.com…