Gay Marriage, the Supreme Court, and Gross Hypocrisy

Predictably, the Supreme Court split along ideological lines, voting 5 to 4 in favor of gay marriage, making it legal for the entire nation.

President Barack Obama also responded predictably:

• "This ruling is a victory for America. This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free."

Certainly, all Americans must be treated as equals, but this isn’t the point. The law has never treated behaviors as equal; nor should it. In fact, discrimination is the very essence of justice. It is the law’s duty to convict the perpetrator of criminal behavior and to defend the innocent.

I also agree with the President that “When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free." However, the very opposite thing is happening in the wake of pro-gay rulings. The rights and speech of those who believe in traditional marriage are being violated. For example:

• An Iowa Christian couple has lost their livelihood, because they believe in natural marriage. Richard and Betty Odgaard ran Görtz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa -- a beautiful wedding chapel, art gallery, flower shop, and bistro.  They had been serving happy customers in the renovated stone church for 11 years. That is, until homosexuals from Des Moines targeted their Christian business, to use as a tool of the gay agenda.

• A Pentagon spokesman has just said in writing that Christian troops will be punished and court-martialed if they dare to talk about their personal faith in Jesus Christ. 

Such violations of our constitutionally guaranteed rights are escalating along with the gay political agenda. Why doesn’t the President apply this same principle - “When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free" – to others! Would you call it “hypocrisy?” I certainly would!

The Supreme Court’s deciding vote was cast by Justice Kennedy, who argued:

• "Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser."

Is Kennedy truly concerned about the welfare of children? Why then isn’t he concerned about the myriad of studies showing the high price paid by these future parents in terms of abbreviated lives, STDs, mental health issues, domestic violence, and substance abuse? Why does he seem to be dismissive of the overwhelming number of studies showing that children fare far better with their biological parents?

Does he really care about the children? Do any of those who voted in favor of gay marriage?

THE DEADLY CONSTRICTION OF THOUGHT AND SPEECH

When reason fails to argue in your favor, there is always coercion. In The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech, liberal democrat, Kirsten Powers, writes about the Left's methods:

• The illiberal left yearns for a world sanitized of information that offends them. So why not just tune out the views they don’t like? They can’t. They are authoritarians at heart; they know what Americans should think and what information they should consume. So they launch petitions to have particular views censored from newspapers. They try to get columnists fired for expressing the wrong views. The illiberal left has maniacally maneuvered to delegitimize the Fox News Channel, unable to abide the existence of one news network critical of the president. High- ranking White House officials were the face of this effort, telling anyone who would listen that Fox News was “not really a news station” and not “legitimate.” These top government officials were joined in their illiberal campaign by the progressive nonprofit Media Matters for America (MMFA), which enjoys the support of some of the Democratic Party’s top donors. 12 At one point, Media Matters’ CEO David Brock told Politico that the organization’s ninety- person staff and $10 million annual budget was dedicated to the purpose of waging “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” 13 against Fox News. A leaked MMFA memo for liberal donors detailed a strategy to destroy Fox that included plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees.

• The illiberal left hunts down heretics, dissidents, and run- of- the mill dissenters to not only silence them, but make examples of them for the rest of society. Dissent from liberal orthodoxy is cast as racism, misogyny, bigotry, phobia... Those who oppose same- sex marriage don’t have rational, traditional views about marriage that deserve respect or debate; they are bigots and homophobes. When conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate” it wasn’t due to a differing philosophy about the role of government. No, they were waging a “War on Women.”

Why does Powers term them "illiberal?"

• The illiberal left, on the other hand, believes that people who express ideological, philosophical, or political views that don’t line up with their preferences should be completely silenced. Instead of using persuasion and rhetoric to make a positive case for their causes and views, they work to delegitimize the person making the argument through character assassination, demonization, and dehumanizing tactics. These are the self- appointed overlords— activists, university administrators, journalists, and politicians— who have determined what views are acceptable to express. So, shut up— or else.

Sadly, these Leftists aren't a fringe element. According to Powers, they have great latitude to shape young, idealistic, but naive minds:

• On campuses there are speech codes, so- called “free speech zones,” and a host of “anti- discrimination” policies that discriminate against people who dissent from lefty groupthink. Christian and conservative groups have been denied official university status by student government organizations for holding views not in line with liberal dogma.

We might think that the universities and media have a vested interest in upholding the freedom of speech for all. However, myopically, they are convinced that, by depriving a voice to some, their voice will remain unbridled. 

This is what the proletariat masses, who met Lenin upon his return to Russia in 1917 with enthusiastic cries of "Power to the people; Power to the Soviets" thought. They had been promised that they would be in control and not the Tzars. However, Lenin had other ideas:

• One of the first moves of Lenin’s government was to ban all opposition press. When asked about freedom of speech Lenin answered: “Freedom of speech?! We are not going to commit suicide.” (Russiapedia) 

Powers is certainly not alone in her analysis:

• “This tainting and ostracism of sinners is the secret power of the leftist faith,” wrote David Horowitz in Progressives, Volume II of The Black Book of the American Left. “It is what keeps the faithful in line.” It is “part of a ritual that has become familiar over generations of the left, in which dissidents are excommunicated and consigned to various Siberias for their political deviance. It is a phenomenon normal to religious cults, where purity of heart is maintained through avoiding contact with the unclean.” 

The reaction to Powers’ book by her fellow liberal leftists was predictable. Breitbart reports:

• Powers, a lifelong liberal and supporter of gay marriage, has suffered an avalanche of abuse from her side. She’s called a “bigot,” “homophobe,” “f-ckface,” and more. It is a classic Leftist tactic – take something the person did or said, lie about it, make it into a huge deal, and use it to discredit them. It is also a Leftist tradition to bury any independent thinkers on their side the moment they express disagreement.

How is it that the Left is able to get away with libel? There is little accountability from the media and the universities. Either these institutions are thug-sympathizers or they are afraid to stand up against the thugs. At best, they compromise their integrity and fail the public trust.

Who is the Real Muslim?

 Is Bin Ladin the real Muslim or the peaceful Muslim next door? Debater and host of the Aramaic Broadcasting Network, David Wood, provides us with a sobering analysis of the real Islam:

• Islam is unique among world religions in that it explicitly calls for the violent subjugation of unbelievers. Western theorists insist that Islam can be reformed…However Islam does not allow Muslims to question or reinterpret the commands of Allah or Muhammad (Qur’an 33:36). Hence, any attempts to reform the Islamic concept of Jihad will be considered innovation and heresy among Muhammad’s more devout followers. (Christian Research Journal, Vol. 36/Number 01, 47)

However, whenever I mention these harsh realities to my secular friends, they brush off my concerns, claiming that they have many friendly and respectful Muslim friends and that I need to make some myself.

However, Wood insists that if the Muslim is faithful to their religion, then this show of friendship is no more than a ploy according to the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya, which authorizes the Muslim to deceive the infidel, until they can gain the upper hand:

• Concealing the true intentions of the Islamic community in order to guard against attacks from non-Muslims. This tactic was eventually made explicit in Qur’an 3:28: “Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security” (Pickthall). This verse forbids friendship with unbelievers, unless Muslims are heavily outnumbered and they feel that they are in danger from a stronger adversary. That’s when Muslims are told to pretend to be friendly. Ibn Kathir, history’s most respected Qur’an commentator, quotes Muhammad’s companions to explain 3:28:

• Allah sad next, (unless you indeed fear the danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them. Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, “The Tuqyah […Taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.”

Consistent with this, wherever Islam becomes a sizable minority, they are compelled by their faith to seek to impose Shariah law, which reduces all non-Muslims to a secondary and dependent status. It also means the end of free speech and the rights we have long cherished in the West.

Wood demonstrates that Islam has a long and deeply entrenched history of intolerance:

• In Medina, Muhammad began ordering his followers to assassinate critics. Early detractors such as Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan, and Ka’b bin al-Ashraf were all murdered for writing poems about Muhammad or Islam…Muslims began following Muhammad’s example by killing those who spoke negatively of their prophet: “Narrated Ali ibn Abu Talib: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died…” Muhammad eventually laid down harsh penalties of death, dismemberment, or imprisonment for the extraordinarily vague crime of “making mischief” in the land: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned…” (Qur’an 5:33. Shakir)

What then is the overriding intention of Islam? Wood claims that their purpose is to:

• Subjugate and humiliate Jews and Christians. The justification for carrying out the attacks commanded in Qur’an 9:29...  “And Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!” (Qur’an 9:30) (45-46)

How do we explain the fact that peace with Islam is always so tentative? The Qur’an gives us all the explanation we need. While the Muslims are the best of peoples (3:110), the “People of the Book [the Bible] … are the worst of creatures” (98:6, Hilali-Khan). Consequently, Muslims perform righteously by fighting against these “worst of creatures”:

• “Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day…nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth [Islam]. From among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Qur’an 9:29, Ali)

If this is all true, then concern should lead us to expose these threats. However, the West has not only failed to do this, but has criminalized those who do, charging them with “Islamophobia” and “hate speech!”

What is the true face of Islam? It really doesn’t take much to answer this question. Even if we can’t read the Qur’an, we can travel to Islamic nations, even to the supposedly “secular” Islamic nations where the religious minorities are compelled to live in fear that someone might charge them with “insulting the Prophet.”

Homosexuality, Equality, Discrimination, and Free Speech

Should Christians have the right to discriminate against gays? Don’t they have a right to protection under the law, and doesn’t the First Amendment guarantee our free exercise of religion? How do we put these concerns together? Here’s my response to an atheist on this subject:

Thanks for your willingness to try to understand these issues from a Christian perspective.

There are many difficult moral/legal issues involved in these various cases. You raise the issue regarding a public employee needing to follow the law. Recently, my state of New York legalized gay marriage. There was a Christian clerk (and perhaps also a judge) who had been hoping that she could be grandfathered-in based upon her years of faithful service as a civil service employee. However, Gov. Cuomo told her that absolutely no special allowances would be made for her, even if there were others willing to transact the gay marriage in her place.

This is very reflective of the harsh and militant secularism of today. It wasn’t always this way. Prior to this, government had a greater respect for diversity of opinion and belief. Of course, certain religious practices couldn’t be tolerated. If sexing of one’s young children was a part of religion, society understandably has a prevailing interest to not tolerate such a practice.

However, our nation has often shown itself willing to accommodate religious practices that did not serve the common good. For instance, the Supreme Court allowed for conscientious objectors, even though this provision might serve to create discord within the ranks of the military. It ruled that Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t have to say the Pledge of Allegiance, even though it could be argued that this provision would cause an erosion in patriotism. However, the Court rightly deemed that society could tolerate such diversity.

The secularism of yesterday had a high regard for diversity in belief, and consequently, honored the First Amendment, which forbade government from interfering with the practice of religion. This respect maintained a unity in the midst of diversity.

It also maintained professionalism. Within the mental health community, there was a certain degree of respect for differing points of view. If a therapist didn’t feel she could work effectively with a court-mandated rapist, the case was given to someone else. If a Christian couldn’t effectively counsel a gay couple who were trying to resolve their issues, it was usually deemed that these clients should be assigned to a different therapist.

However, this kind of tolerance is no longer valued. Now Christians are loosing their jobs, credentials, and are even being expelled from counseling programs simply because of their views. California just passed a law forbidding a psychotherapist from working with a youth seeking help to resist SSA!

Should Christians have the right to exercise their faith in regards to their own properties, households/businesses? Even here, the law is messy. I think that most of us would uphold certain forms of discrimination in these regards. The law shouldn’t coerce the owner of home-based B&B to employ or murderer or a pedophile. Nor should it coerce the B&B to rent a room to a known thief or to someone who will pose a threat to the welfare of the business or the patrons.

However, I do acknowledge that society has the right to impose certain restrictions. Because of the overriding social concerns, businesses should not have the right to discriminate by virtue of race or nationality.

However, these are not behaviors but morally neutral, unchanging characteristics. However, discrimination according to behavior – criminality – is entirely another matter. Sexual orientation is one thing – we are all oriented to certain types of sins – but sexual behavior is entirely another matter.

Should a B&B owner be compelled by law to rent space in their home for an adulterous fling? Or to someone who insists on smoking in their bedroom? Perhaps they are intolerant, but isn’t such intolerance warranted? Forbidding this type of “intolerance” would represent needless and malicious government encroachment – the very thing that is happening today. Because of this encroachment, many Christians have lost their businesses.

Christian businesses are now targeted by militant gays who want to force them to violate their conscience. One Christian community can no longer host weddings under their private boardwalk pavilion because of a court ruling that it represented discrimination against gays.

Today, I was discriminated against by an atheist Facebook group, which banned me. I didn’t like it, but I respect their right to do so. Christian groups also do this. They have a right to maintain the character of their group. However, universities – both public and private – have now banned Christian student groups from campus because they “discriminate.” Meanwhile, these same universities discriminate in their hiring against Christians and allow other groups that discriminate – the Young Democrats, for example.

There are so many instances of this type of thing. Mentioning individual cases serves to minimize the extent of this pervasive cultural bias.

I am not really against gay marriage. It’s something that gays have always been free to do, albeit without legal sanction. However, with legal sanction, there will be the inevitable push to silence any criticism of the gay lifestyle. In Denmark, churches are now required to marry SS couples.

Even now, the New Federal Hate Crimes Bill penalizes any speech that can be construed to lead to a hate crime. Some congressmen tried to write in an exception for responsible religious speech. However, this amendment was voted down.

Many have already lost their jobs or suffered intimidation because they have spoken outside-the-job against gay marriage.

I must conclude with one additional thought. This militant, totalitarian secularism is polarizing the nation in such a way that we will not be able to live together.

Hate Speech: What in the World is it?

Most recently, Chick-Fil-A (CFA) has been accused of “hate speech.” Why? Because CFA have been open about their Biblical belief in exclusively heterosexual marriage. According to many championing the gay agenda, this automatically means that CFA hates gays! Somehow, non-agreement has been magically translated as “hate.”

Do these “champions” actually see things this way or is this just propaganda? After all, in order to be consistent, they should also call President Obama’s words “hate speech.” Why? Because he wants to raise taxes on the rich and not others! Does this mean that he hates the rich? I wouldn’t say so. It seems that he too has become pretty wealthy.

Meanwhile, the Republicans want to limit government. Does this mean that they hate government workers? Of course not!

Interestingly, there are gays who are becoming quite troubled by these “hate speech” charges. One gay writes:

• My name is Matt. I'm approaching 20 years old. I am a liberal and a supporter of Barack Obama in 2012. What's more is that I am gay and I support Chick-Fil-A… those running the corporations (like Dan Cathy CEO of Chick-Fil-A) have a right to express their beliefs. It has always been an area that causes me to respect Chick-Fil-A when they close on Sundays for the only purpose of retaining personal convictions over profit motives. Mr. Cathy has been unfairly attacked for his statement that he doesn't support same-sex marriage. As a gay man I say let him not support gays. When the gay community and gay activist groups push on anti-gay people and organizations to change their minds and opinions via bullying or forced involvement I fear it would make whatever accomplishments taste cheap like a greasy coin. Ultimately the acceptance of the gay community and the right of gays to marry will not be achieved through violent means, physical and verbal, but through peaceful and honest negotiations…How would you feel if Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, a well known Republican and Christian, told all gay business owners and workers that they could not get a job in the state because their beliefs did not match the beliefs of the state? We would call it unfair and a violation of our civil rights. Why then is it okay for a mayor to tell a company they cannot open business in the city simply because our beliefs differ?

Sadly, Matt makes far more sense than our media and universities – and these should have a vested interest in the free exchange of ideas - that have jumped on the “hate speech” bandwagon.

Thought Control, Propaganda, Repression and the Gay Agenda

Totalitarian regimes reign through the control of the flow of ideas. To control “the nerve centers of the state,” is to control thinking and to secure compliance as one astute politician had put it:

• In every really great revolutionary movement propaganda will first have to spread the idea of this movement. Thus, it will untiringly try to make clear to the others the new train of thought, to draw them over to its own ground, or at least to make them doubtful of their own previous conviction…The organization receives its member from the followers in general won by propaganda. (Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf)

Today, perhaps in slow-motion, the arm of propaganda is sweeping across the West, pushing aside any convictions or human rights that stand in its path. Recently, two women grad students in counseling programs in state universities were expelled because they didn’t believe in gay marriage and refused remediation.

More recently, Mayors Tom Merino of Boston and Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, announced plans to use their powers to prevent Chick-fil-A (CFA) from expanding its business in these two cities. Why? Because CFA has blatantly expressed its support for heterosexual marriage!

Who cares about their oath to uphold the Constitution and its First Amendment guaranteeing free speech if it detracts from one’s political agenda!

In California, State Sen. Ted Lieu, the author of  Senate Bill 1172, seeks to ban sexual orientation conversion therapy (SOCT) for California minors—even if they or their parents want it.

In order to pass such a repressive and discriminatory bill, the propaganda machinery has been ejaculating all manner of negative messages against SOCT:

• Such treatment, which seeks to change a patient's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, is widely criticized in the psychological community as scientifically ineffective and even dangerous. It is blamed for depression and suicide attempts in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youths. 

It has just been disclosed that the Colorado shooter had been seeing a psychotherapist. However, I guarantee that no one will begin to accuse this profession of creating maniacal “jokers” out of their hapless patients. The gay lifestyle is filled with enough risk factors without having to blame the counselor who attempts to help his client avoid the well-documented perils of this lifestyle.

Propaganda isn’t satisfied with merely putting forth its own view of things. It also has to discredit, intimidate and silence the opposition using whatever charges work best. Inevitably, it will clothe itself with the banner of pursuing equal rights, human rights, or concern for the masses. Propaganda, like rat poison, must be made enticing – mixing one part poison to four parts appetizing nuggets. Likewise, propaganda makes the claim that it is seeking justice, while it discredits its opponents as forces of repression and injustice.

According to Lieu, SOCT is absolutely illegitimate:

• "The attack on parental rights is exactly the whole point of the bill because we don't want to let parents harm their children. For example, the government will not allow parents to let their kids to smoke cigarettes. We also won't have parents let their children consume alcohol at a bar or restaurant. We have these laws to stop parents from hurting their kids. Preventive therapy hurts children, so this bill allows us to stop parents from hurting their children."

Lieu pleads the righteousness of his case. Counseling children, whose sexual interests are still very fluid, is compared to intoxication and smoking. SOCT hurts children, while magically the endless barrage of counseling that they receive from their secular state schools insures their welfare. Indeed, encouraging them to explore and pursue their sexuality, even if this means adopting the gay lifestyle – and this lifestyle is strongly associated with depression, suicide, STDs, and an abbreviated life-span – carries no associated risks! What madness!

According to this thinking, the secular state is the best overseer of the welfare of the children – even better than their own parents who love and have sacrificed for them. This is central to propaganda – “The State knows best – better than anyone else.” It is this rationale that is used to silence the opposition. After all, the State must gain ascendancy over the influence of the parents. Interestingly, the-State-knows-best philosophy has been tried and each time with horrific results. Think Communism and National Socialism – not very inspiring!

However, there are still those who will stand against the prospect of intimidation.

• A study conducted by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas compared the “social, emotional, and relational” outcomes for children raised in different family structures, including children raised by heterosexual parents and those raised in homes in which the parents had been in homosexual relationships. It found that the children raised in homes in which parents had had homosexual relationships were disadvantaged in numerous ways.

However, Regnerus is now being punished because of his study. It is one thing for studies to be criticized, and they should be. This is a necessary aspect of accountability. However, criticism isn’t enough for the forces of repression. Two hundred academicians signed a petition demanding that Regnerus be brought up on ethical charges.

Regnerus’ study is certainly not beyond reproach, but neither is any other study, especially in this contentious field. Andrew Ferguson pointed out this fact in the Weekly Standard:

• The limitations of Regnerus’ study compare favorably with the shortcomings found routinely in the same-sex literature. It does no credit to the guild that researchers have choked on Regnerus’ paper while happily swallowing dozens of faulty studies over the last 20 years—because, you can’t help but think, those studies were taken as confirming the “no difference” dogma. “If the Regnerus study is to be thrown out,” wrote the Canadian family economist Douglas Allen in a statement supporting Regnerus, “then practically everything else [in the literature] has to go with it.”

Why didn’t these 200 academicians raise a whisper about these other studies? Unlike Regnerus’, these studies unsurprisingly came to politically correct conclusions. They oiled the gears of the propaganda machine. No surprise!

Consequently, Regnerus is now under investigation for ethics violations. Which academic will now risk his career to put forth a study that contradicts the prevailing dogma? Only the most courageous! Expect only one-sided studies and one-sided news!

However, it gets worse:

• Perhaps you are unaware of the “Commentator Accountability Project” of the powerful Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). It was launched earlier this year to hold media outlets (not commentators) accountable for allowing traditional marriage advocates (including this writer) to have a voice in the public debate.

How is it that the media has so quickly succumbed to these Nazi tactics? You don’t find any anti-gay-marriage arguments in the secular media, do you?

• One of its key concepts for twisting the arms of journalists is the slogan “bias is not balance.” How’s that for simply redefining pro-family opinion out of existence in the newsroom? I personally recall a leader of the Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association years ago state that allowing pro-family people to comment in news stories related to homosexuality was equivalent to letting the Ku Klux Klan have equal time in stories about race.

Therefore, we can forget about balanced reporting. This is becoming equated with “bias.” But then isn’t GLAAD’s stance also biased? Isn’t the idea that the State can prohibit certain forms of counseling – think free speech – also a matter of bias? If we think that pedophilia is wrong, is that too a matter of bias that must be silenced? Why not?

Sadly, propaganda works. Those who control the media and the universities mold the minds. They also determine politics – who can speak and who can’t; who goes to prison and who can exercise power. We will find that as reason and principle succumb to propaganda and politics, power will fill the vacuum and become the final arbiter.