The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “gay rights”

Nancy Pelosi: The Iron-ing Lady Part 3 – Playing Chicken With Homosexuality

Since Chick-fil-A founder and president Dan Cathy “came out” and publicly opposed gay marriage, liberals, predictably, have been denouncing him and every conservative under the sun for what is unfairly, but routinely, referred to as bigotry, homophobia and hatred of an entire people.  Nancy Pelosi, our own Iron-ing Lady has clucked into the conversation as well.  And in case you ever wondered where she acquired her greasy fingers, she has provided us with that answer in her paltry attempt at sneering her nose at Chick-fl-A, and conservatives, while endearing herself to those gays and lesbians who are just weak-minded enough to overlook her condescension towards them.  Pelosi has stated she prefers Kentucky Fried Chicken over Chick-fil-A.

We know that in real life Pelosi could care less about KFC or Chick-fil-A.  But our Iron-ing Lady needed to make some type of statement to her homosexual and liberal base to acknowledge her “disgust” with Cathy for his stance on tradition marriage, no matter how blatantly irrational and obviously false.  This is what liberals do, after-all.  They merely blow with the wind, in whatever direction that wind happens to be blowing on that particular day.  Pelosi thought she could use a “controversy” (which what Cathy stated is not) and make conservatives look weak and foolish, hateful and bigoted, while at the same time propping herself up as a model of endearing tolerance and acceptance.  Pelosi has merely shown herself to be the fool.

Conservatism has come a long way since the 1940’s  and 50’s when there was virtually universal agreement among conservatives that homosexuality was an absolute abomination, and that included going so far as to regulate what gays and lesbians did in the privacy of their own homes.  That type of mentality no longer exists in modern conservatism.  Most conservatives, today, while they may oppose gay marriage, and may oppose homosexuality itself, have absolutely no desire to regulate or control or punish the act of homosexuality.  Certainly not to the extent of our parents and grandparents generation.  And we neither are interested in regulating what gays and lesbians do in the privacy of their own homes any more than we desire to regulate what they do in public – within the realm of reasonable and polite conduct, which also goes for heterosexuals.

While tolerance for homosexuality has dramatically increased within conservative circles, that doesn’t mean we regard homosexuality as either a civil or Constitutional right.  And we certainly do not support judges making up laws based on their own personal opinions.  We, conservatives, (most conservatives at any rate) are not interested in punishing someone for being gay or lesbian.  We certainly do not want laws on the books that ban homosexuals from participating in, and alongside of, society.  Nor do we desire to push them out of society.  In fact, most conservatives today openly welcome gays and lesbians into society, as we do with anyone who acts in a responsible, dignified and proper manner in public.

Most homosexuals who are liberal (for we know there are many conservative gays and lesbians as well) are hell-bent on pushing themselves and their marriage equality agenda on our entire nation, with total and absolute disregard for what the will of the people want.  That is sheer arrogance and a recipe for a devastating set-back for homosexuals in America.  And as America moves back to its conservative roots, while it accepts homosexuality to a greater degree than in decades past, if gays and lesbians agitate and aggravate conservatives too much, that support will begin to diminish and homosexuals will be back to pre-Stonewall times.  This ought to frustrate the hell out of conservative gays and lesbians who know the games that liberals are playing with them, at their expensive.  And conservative gays and lesbians ought to know that liberals who play these games with their sexual orientation only do so because they feel it will score them political points, not because they, like our Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, really cares about you or whether your rights, and your entire lifestyle, are being trampled on by a restaurant owner.

If gay marriage is ever going to come to fruition in America, it can only do so when a majority of American people favor such a redefining of marriage, and show that support in the voting booths.  Gay marriage, indeed, homosexuality itself, will make no inroads so long as it continues to force itself on the America people and make absurd and improper demands on us such as to either accept them or be labeled and branded as bigots and homophobes.

We, conservatives, are much stronger, and more resolved, than weak-minded buffoons like our Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi.  Not only is she playing chicken with homosexuality, she is chicken.  So are all liberals who have come out in opposition to Cathy and his American right to have and to voice his opinion.  Freedom of speech is not only for liberals.  But every time a conservative speaks up on behalf of an issue liberals reject, said liberals try to silence conservatives.  Cathy said nothing improper, nothing bigoted, nothing hateful.

Pelosi, on the other hand, is far more hateful, far more bigoted, and far more a hypocrite for her pathetic response to Cathy than is Cathy towards gays and lesbians.  Why?  Cathy is sincere in his stance against gay marriage, which has nothing to do with homosexuality in of itself.  How sincere is Pelosi, really, towards homosexuality, or any issue that she supports, which she only supports because she has been told by strategists such support will equate into more votes for her?  Try as Pelosi might, this Iron-ing Lady cannot smooth out the wrinkles of her convoluted absurdity.

In fact, the fabric of liberalism, on which these wrinkles reside, have so distorted, and so faded, the original facade of this outfit that at this point it is best to just throw it out and buy something new.  (Some might consider this to be an insult against Pelosi herself.  It is more of an insult against liberalism, than any one liberal.  But, and although Pelosi is old and is showing her age, and as a politician is indeed worn, faded and wrinkled, it could also be taken to mean it is time to replace Pelosi with a fresh face in congress that is not so set, as stone, in their ways.)

It’s up to all gays and lesbians to decide how far they want to take the issue of gay marriage, and in which direction they wish to take it.  America is in fact becoming more conservative, little by little.  Either they can reject liberals like Pelosi, who only pander to them, and embrace conservative who, although may not support gay marriage, certainly do not support outlawing and punishing homosexuality or homosexual behavior – and would accept, in principle, homosexual marriage if that is what a majority of Americans also supported.  Or – gays and lesbians can fall and collapse back into themselves and lose everything they have fought so hard to attain for so many decades.  It is all a matter of priority, and what is most important to gays and lesbians.  Fighting a losing battle, or accepting that gay marriage is not realistic right now, but may be, and would have a better chance of being real, in the future if they were more patient.

Nancy Pelosi, the Iron-ing Lady, is willing to push back the gains made by gays and lesbians for her own personal agenda.  How is that working for homosexuals, and improving upon the homosexual cause, in America?

Gay Marriage And Why The Majority Rules, Not The Tyranny Of The Minority

Where the United States Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority, the rights of minority are not infringed upon.  However, the Constitution is not vocal on every single “rights” issue the minority so passionately protests be inducted into the Constitution.  And where those “rights” do not exist anywhere in the Constitution, the minority seeks aid from Leftists and liberal activist judges to “reinterpret” (bend and skew) those Constitutional rights to include language that was never intended so that those “rights”, although they do not exist in the Constitution, become protected.  And while they are not protected explicitly by the Constitution, they are protected by those same liberal activist judges and courts, until they can be successfully removed, effectively blocking the right of the majority to overturn those laws.  In essence – it is the tyranny of the minority which is oppressing and suppressing the rights of the majority.  That is un-Constitutional.

How can you accept something, anything, as a “right” that does not yet exist?  Further, how can you protect that which does not yet exist?  The minority wants gay marriage, which does not exist as a right in the Constitution, (and therefore cannot be Constitutionally accepted and protected) to be Constitutionally accepted and protected nonetheless.  It is in that act of liberal blindness, and throwing lawsuit after lawsuit at every court in America, hoping enough lawsuits will “stick” (and that has been the case, especially with liberal courts) so that enough legal protection and cover for whatever “rights”, gay marriage notwithstanding, the minority advocates for becomes legally protected without ever having to actually be Constitutionally protected or pass Constitutional muster first.

The Left, invoking stare decisis, and the passage of time, and pointing to decided and established law as justification enough to keep such laws intact, becomes irritated and frustrated when those laws are challenged on their Constitutionality.  They further become heated when courts begin to dismantle those coveted laws, finding those laws, rightly, to actually be un-Constitutional.  When the minority is in the majority, in specific pockets of America (San Fransisco, for example) and they, as a majority in those specific locales, pass laws as a majority in their communities, those laws, by virtue of having been passed by a majority (although they represent a minority in the rest of America) become law.  That is Constitutional, and conservatives, although we may not necessarily agree with those laws passed, respect and uphold the right of the majority when they do pass such laws.  Why (and this is rhetorical for obvious reasons) doesn’t the minority have that same respect for the majority when the majority passes laws they, the minority may not necessarily agree with?

The Constitution protects the majority and the right of the majority to pass laws the minority may not approve of, or feel suppresses them.  Remember – the Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority in many instances, but not every single “right” is Constitutionally protected.  In other words – if gays and advocates for gay marriage want gay marriage to be Constitutionally protected it will first take a majority in the House and Senate to support and pass a new gay marriage amendment and then send that amendment to the states for ratification, in which it will also take a majority of states to make that gay marriage amendment law.

Since there is not a majority in the House and Senate that support gay marriage, let alone a gay marriage amendment; and since there is not a majority of states that support gay marriage, let alone a gay marriage amendment, there is little hope of gay marriage actually becoming Constitutional law any time soon.  This does not stop gay rights advocates from trying to work around the Constitution by using activist judges and courts, in what can only be considered and construed to be acts of tyranny against the majority, to push through their gay rights agenda.

Every one of these attempts is un-Constitutional, and for all their “progress” when more conservative judges who are strict Constitutionalists begin replacing liberal activist judges, those laws will begin to fall, much to the chagrin to liberals.  And that “progress” will push them back.  Liberals, who deal strictly through emotions and emotionally based arguments (as opposed to fact based arguments) will never understand this.  Nor will liberals ever understand their use of hypocrisy and double standards, while it may assuage them, while it may comfort them, does nothing but show how shallow they are, and are willing to be.

In other words – what will happen when a majority of citizens in a state votes to legalize gay marriage in that state and the minority, those that still oppose legal recognition of gay marriage in that state, demand their “minority rights” supersede the majority’s rights and gay marriage be null and void on that basis?  Will the majority then recognize the “rights” of the minority?

Discrimination Is Both American And Constitutional (And We Ought To Appreciate It)

So a woman walks into a local bakery, turns to the owner and casually says, “Can you bake a cake for my wedding?  Oh by the way, it’s a lesbian wedding.  I’m gay.”  The owner takes a deep breath and she replies, “I’m sorry, I can’t make that kind of cake.  I’m Christian.”

This is not a joke.  There is no punchline and nobody is laughing.  Not the lesbian couple who wanted the cake made, nor the owner of the Des Moines, Iowa bakery who declined to make the cake and is now threatened with a possible lawsuit.

The two lesbians, Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers claim they were shocked when owner, Victoria Childress, told them she could not, in good faith, and because of her Christian faith, prepare such a wedding cake as was being asked of her.  Said Childress:

I didn’t do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right as a business owner.  It is my right, and it’s not to discriminate against them.  It’s not so much to do with them, as it’s to do with me, and my walk with God and what I will answer (to) him for.”

What is most troubling about this is not what you might expect.  It isn’t the fact that a lesbian couple was denied service by a Christian business owner.  Nor is it the fact that this lesbian couple would contemplate filing a lawsuit for discrimination.  That is to be expected, in this day and age in our country.  What is most troubling about this is if this lesbian couple does file a lawsuit, it is tremendously probable, virtually 100% likely, they will win.  In other words, a win for this lesbian couple would compel and force, by law, every single business owner – at least in Iowa (for the time being) – to check their own personal beliefs and convictions at the door of their own business.  This is extremely unsettling.  It is un-American and it is unconstitutional.

Business owners in America have, and must retain, a right to discriminate, to refuse service to whomever they choose.  Whether we agree with that premise or not, as private business owners, it must be their right to make whatever moral decisions for their business as they see fit, rather than the right of government to make legal decisions in substitution of those moral and private decisions.  And whatever decisions a private business owner ultimately makes will, and ought to reflect, and to take into consideration, the community around them.  In other words, how will the community – the people they would hope to do business with, and make a profit from, react?  If the community itself rejects a business owner’s moral decision to not do business with a lesbian couple because that business owner opposes homosexuality on religious grounds, then let the community be the deciding factor, not government, not the law – and not by adding another dubious law to the books.

The lesbian couple added a statement to a lesbian web site stating:

Awareness of equality was our only goal in bringing this to light, it is not about cake or someone’s right to refuse service to a customer.”

“Equality”.  Sounds grand, doesn’t it?  But in that quest for “equality” someone always loses, don’t they?  In other words, the lesbian couple, in their pursuit of “equality” might win.  Should this happen, the business owner, Victoria Childress loses, doesn’t she?  And what does she lose?  She loses her right as a private business owner to make her own decisions about her own business.

Put aside, for a moment, America’s long history of discrimination against blacks, Jews, the Chinese, the Irish, the Italians, the Japanese and just about every group and class of people that ever existed.  This is a separate issue.  This is a case of whether or not a private business owner has the right to refuse business to someone, anyone, for any reason, in their own business.  And it is a case of just how much (more) power we are willing to grant government, and how much (more) freedom we the people are willing to relinquish in our endless endeavor for “equality”.  But as we ought to know, by now, the more we push for “equality” the more we push, and squeeze out, personal freedom.

It has never been the role of government to interfere with private business or with whom private business conducts its business.  One hundred years of segregation against blacks changed that.  The government stepped in and ended Jim Crow and segregation.  In doing so, our government unwittingly, perhaps, opened up a legal Pandora’s box.  It paved the way for legally forcing an end to any type of discrimination, both in the public square and private, thus forcing private businesses owners, upon penalty of a hefty fine, losing their business license and their right to own and operate a business to acquiesce to their clientele, whomever that clientele might be.

So – a woman walks into a local bakery, turns to the owner and casually says, “Can you bake a cake for my wedding?  Oh by the way, it’s a lesbian wedding.  I’m gay.”  The owner takes a deep breath and she replies, “I’m sorry, I can’t make that kind of cake.  I’m Christian.”

Was this an innocent encounter, or was there something more going on?  In other words, why did these lesbians go into this particular bakery?  Did they know ahead of time the owner was a Christian who would ultimately turn their request down because of her religious convictions?  Was this a set up?  And why can’t these lesbians simply accept the fact that this particular business owner is a Christian and go find another bakery to make their cake?  If these lesbians want to be accepted for who they are, why can’t they accept this Christian business owner for who she is?

Whatever this was, an innocent mistake or a devious trap, it has become something deeper and more provocative.  With a potential lawsuit, win or lose, either scenario will be challenged, ultimately winding up in the Supreme court; nine justices who will have to decide whether or not all business owners in America have the right to choose to do business with whom they want, and decline to do business with those they don’t.  The Supreme court will have to decide if in the name of “equality”, in our plight to end discrimination everywhere in America it exists, it is right, it is legal, it is Constitutional to hold business owners as “unequal” and thus lawful to discriminate against them.  All in the name of “equality”.

Is that the kind of  “equality” we ought to accept and to appreciate?

“Homosexuality Is Wrong” Is The Newest Swear Word

Texas School Punishes Boy For Opposing Homosexuality | Fox News.

Ever since the brutal and despicable murder of Matthew Sheppard in1998, a gay college student from the University of Wyoming, there has been a push in America to ban any speech that might offend, be offensive, or might be construed as anti-gay, in the work place, in the public square and in public schools.

Young Dakota Ary learned this lesson the hardest way possible one day when he uttered that phrase at school in his German class.  His teacher happened to overhear the statement.  For Dakota’s lack of understanding and compassion toward what has essentially come to be a government protected, and coddled, class of people, he was sent to the principal’s office where justice was done upon him, much to the horror and disbelief of his mother, in the form of a one day in school suspension, plus two days of full suspension.  (That was later dropped after an attorney with Liberty Counsel intervened on Dakota’s behalf.)

Dakota is not alone.  Many other students have endured such a fate as he, and this type of over reactionary measure awaits anyone, nowadays, who would dare to have an opinion that seeks to upend the liberally controlled public school system.  Even within the work place and the public square itself – the epitome of free speech, hate crimes advocates and lawyers are closing in and narrowing the definition of free speech.

Naturally it is one thing entirely for a public school, and a teacher in that public school, to want to enforce rules and standards, and to be actively monitoring what children are saying in his/her classroom, looking out for inappropriate speech or speech that might lead to the physical injury of another person.

But let’s be realistic.  If Dakota had been learning about Christianity, say that of the 16th or 17th century, how religious dissension in that era had plunged Europe into many wars and struggles, and after hearing about all the blood shed and death of so many people, had he formed an opinion from that lecture, turned to his class mate and said, “Christianity is wrong”,  does anyone really believe that, in today’s public school, Dakota would be punished with school suspension, or punished at all, for his lack of sensitivity toward Christianity?

Check out the “Bong hits for Jesus” t-shirt controversy.  Denigrating Christianity in public schools is far more protected, far more commonplace (and more common coming from teachers themselves rather than the students) and upheld by judges as free speech, than a simple, albeit, perhaps unintentionally hurtful remark, as “I think homosexuality is wrong”.  It was a private thought Dakota made to a classmate not in any way meant to be hurtful or to promote an agenda.  Rather, it was an aside that his teacher overheard and took way out of context.

In this same article it is stated how this very teacher of Dakota’s had once put up a picture of two men kissing on his classroom wall.  Very clearly, then, it is Dakota’s teacher, not Dakota himself, who is pushing an agenda.  But if it is a pro homosexual agenda then that is protected.

We have seen the vitriol, controversy and the double standard every time a proposal is brought forth to put up the Ten Commandments in a public school.  The people who cry bigotry for what they perceive to be anti-gay rhetoric are the same people who are quick to oppose the Ten Commandments in any public school out of a manufactured fear of insensitivity to the other students who might not be Christian and therefore offended or belittled by having to walk past such a religious placard.

But this is just more of the same anti-religious runaround that has wedged itself into the public school system for the passed fifty years.

Public schools should not be places where children are made to feel ashamed of who they are, whether they are gay or Christian.  Nor should they be places where children are indoctrinated by their teachers who have ulterior agendas and motives counter to the purpose of public education and to that of their community at large.

Rather, school should be a place where children are properly instructed in facts; historical, scientific, mathematical, grammar, etc.  They should also be a place where students are free to form opinions and ideas on their own, even if they might be uncomfortable to others, including homosexuality and religion, so long as these opinions and ideas are of a constructive, not a destructive, nature.

Just as a public school would never demand a student check their homosexuality at the door before they enter, neither should they demand a student check his or her religion at the door.

Right now, in America, as is evidenced in this latest anti-religious fervor involving Dakota Ary, we have a long way yet to go in ensuring that all students have the same rights, not just a select few.  And until local communities are better able to take back their own public schools from errant school boards and rogue teachers, gain more control and secure more of a say in these institutions which their property taxes are funding, it will continue to remain an uphill battle.

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: