The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “Same-sex marriage”

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?

Opposing Gay Marriage Not Bigotry – Forcing It On Americans Is!

The Arianna Nation, besides its “Youth Movement”, also indoctrinates its readers through false religion and spirituality.  So called “Rev.” Susan Russell decried New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s veto of gay marriage, calling it an act of “bigotry” and “déjà vu all over again”, with regards to California’s Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage.

However, there is a fundamental difference between the two that someone as inept, and as liberal, as the “Rev.” Russell has overlooked in taking her arrogant, condescending and un-American position that such a dramatic and historic change in the definition of marriage ought to be decided by legislatures and courts, rather than through the people directly.  The New Jersey legislature did not want, and would not allow, the people to vote directly on whether gays and lesbians would be given the right to marry.  Why would the New Jersey legislature be so timid?  What if the people had voted, by a majority, to support, and make legal, gay marriage?  However they would have voted, they were denied that opportunity.  Isn’t that a form a tyranny?

Look at California, and Prop 8, and their decision to reject gay marriage and keep intact the definition of marriage as being between one man/one woman.  The “Rev.” Russell is the bigot.  She is the one who denounces the will of the people to decide marriage – if and only if that decision results in an unfavorable (to her) vote.  And although proposition 8 was decided by the people directly, “Rev.” Russell would support a court overturning the will of the people.

Now, what if the people of California had voted to allow gay marriage, but a court later overturned that decision?  Wouldn’t she condemn the court for interfering with the will of the people?  Of course she would.  As all hypocrites – and “Rev.” Russell is one of those too – she only wants decisions to be made which she supports.  That is why she comes down hard on Gov. Christie for vetoing the gay marriage initiative at the same time she comes down hard on the people of California for vetoing Prop 8.

In “Rev.” Russell’s perverted outlook, she not only wants it both ways, but any way which results in her position being favored over someone else’s, including the will of the people.  That is bigotry!  When a court does overturn Prop 8 (it’s inevitable) “Rev.” Russell will rejoice and proclaim that an injustice has been corrected.  And yet, if there is a lawsuit against New Jersey to compel the state to recognize gay marriage, and a court finds in favor of the lawsuit – she will rejoice in that as well.  The same can be said if/when the people of New Jersey vote to allow gay marriage in their state.

On the other hand, “Rev.” Russell will be infuriated and flabbergasted if the people (although she supports them exercising their right to vote as long as that is a vote she supports) vote to keep the definition of marriage between one man/women in New Jersey.  “Rev.” Russell is convinced that gay marriage is already a constitutionally protected right (which it is not).

Says “Rev.” Russell:

“And as we continue on the journey toward equality here in California, we count not just the cost of the damage done to gay and lesbian families and those who love them, but the cost of years of litigation to defend what shouldn’t need defending: the equal protection guaranteed all Americans.”

Where in the Constitution is gay marriage an “equal protection”?  The founding fathers never even conceived of the idea that at some point in our country’s history men would want to marry men, and women would want to marry women.  And if they had, they never put anything in the Constitution, not even in a secret code to be deciphered by a more “liberated” generation.

If gays want to marry, this is one of those historic and sweeping decisions that must be made by the people directly.  And when the people, as a majority, are ready for gay marriage, they will vote, as a majority, to include gay marriage as part of the over-all definition of marriage.  Conservatives may not necessarily approve of it, but we at least support the will of the people to have a direct voice in deciding such important matters, rather than left-wing judicial courts and seedy legislatures and politicians who aren’t acting in our best interest.

That is why we support Prop 8, and why we, as conservatives would support a proposition on the New Jersey ballot which allows the people of that state to vote on gay marriage for themselves.  The so-called “Rev” Russell, and all liberals, oppose the will of the majority, especially, and only, when that majority goes against their own ideas and positions.  That makes her the real bigot, and the real hypocrite.

And what makes America great is when people have the power to vote on matters of great interest and importance, even when we don’t necessarily agree with those decisions.  People like “Rev.” Russell will never accept that because people like “Rev.” Russell don’t really have any love for America and the values which have made America the greatest, and most coveted, nation in human history.   “Rev.” Russell is willing to throw all that greatness away by demanding a minority, be it of people in a legislature or people in a court, decide a matter, any matter, which will then be handed down upon all the people, even if the majority opposes it.

America cannot support itself on the weight of the minority.  Right now, support for gay marriage is still in the minority.  Gays and lesbians ought to accept that and move on with other matters.  If they keep pressing it they will inevitably awaken an otherwise apathetic mood towards gays and lesbians among those conservatives who aren’t especially that religiously committed and whom don’t necessarily follow social issues as much as they do political issues.  What conservatives do follow is rule of law and constitutional law.  When we see that law weakened and abridged through corruption, we take action.

If gay marriage is to become accepted, and supported by the majority, it never will through the bigoted and tyrannical actions of the “Rev,” Susan Russell, liberal state legislatures and liberal courts who use their influence not to benefit the majority but to appease a small minority.  It must be done through the will of the people – the majority of the people.

The American people deserve better.  America deserves better.  And the “Rev.” Susan Russell ought to know better.

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: