Posted on 04/23/2009 12:47:52 PM PDT by Graybeard58
"The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." — Sun Tzu, "The Art of War."
This explains why defenders of morality will lose sooner or later, in the legislature or the courts, their battle against special rights for homosexuals. Right now, they are in a pitched battle against SB 899, which would codify last year's state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. Under the civil-unions law, homosexuals had every state marriage right under the sun, but not the title; that, justices degreed, was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
As much as Catholic Church leaders and like-thinkers must stand up for beliefs that have been the cultural glue since the dawn of civilization, they fight a battle they cannot win because SB 899 changes nothing. Anti-discrimination laws apply to all aspects of society, justices said, so it follows that they give homosexuals the right to marry; SB 899 merely writes that into the statutes.
But since those laws grant extraordinary rights, they eventually must trump others' rights to free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association. The bill specifically exempts the clergy, but that clause would be one judicial fiat from repeal. Further, the high court already cleared the way for the state to use its coercive powers to deny contracts, licenses, tax exemptions and such to anyone who for any reason or in any way opposes homosexuality.
And as Archbishop Henry J. Mansell warns, public and parochial schools before long would be compelled to indoctrinate children on the homosexual orthodoxy because failure to do so would be discriminatory.
But this battle was lost long before justices legislated from the bench. It was lost when homosexuals, abetted by the news media, liberal politicians, civil libertarians and secularists, hijacked the moral authority of the civil-rights movement, arguing that denying homosexuals the right to wed was as heinous as the centuries of systematic, government-sponsored abuses of human rights against blacks. Homosexuals surmounted issues of nature, morality and society's paramount interest in supporting marriage for the rearing of children not with reasoned arguments, but demagoguery, moral relativism, propaganda, legislative collusion and judicial activism. In the end, they achieved the social and legal acceptance they craved, the myriad consequences be damned.
With same-sex marriage encoded, opposition to homosexuality by definition must be hateful and discriminatory. With or without SB 899, if you speak your sincere moral beliefs about marriage being the union of a man and a woman, or worship in a church that believes homosexuality is a sin, or are a clergyman who preaches against homosexuality, you are a bigot and at risk of the legal consequences.
The possibilities for lawsuits are endless, starting with churches that deny homosexuals access to their sanctuaries for their weddings and justices of the peace whose consciences don't permit them to perform same-sex marriages. But again, SB 899 is a fait accompli. Even if it's defeated, the black robes will intervene, in the name of "justice" and "fairness."
No, for good or ill, this battle is lost. But even as moral defenders prepare for their last stand on same-sex marriage, over the horizon, the strategists for the next cultural war — polygamy? — are studying the battle plans of homosexual-rights agitators in preparation for the victory that already has been won.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this list, let me know.
The next lost battle will be homosexual adoption.
Conservatives need to start pushing religious liberty amendments in their home states. If they are unable to stop the courts or the voters (i.e. Vermont), then they really need to codify religious liberty protections in their state constitutions.
The battle against same-sex marriage is only lost to the same extent that the battle against allowing this country to become a socialist hell-hole is lost. We lose one, we’ve lost both. How far are we willing to go to make sure we win?
The next lost battle will be homosexual adoption.
it is already lost
Is the Waterbury Republican-American a good paper? Is the editorial board generally conservative?
Okay, then arguments against polygamy, bestiality and a host of other behaviors can also be deemed unwinnable. That's it civilization. Just close up shop and die.
Sooner or later, the behaviors of adult/children relationships will also be pried open, as every living thing under the sun is defiled.
The Muslims do it now. Who are we to say such things shouldn't be done, moral judgments being so flawed a concept in this age?
When lines are no longer drawn, nothing will be considered to be wrong.
In some states. As much as I like many things about the Northeast, I’m thinking it will be time before too long to get me to a red state. They’re not perfect, but much better in many of the items I care about.
Even religious liberty won’t help us now, so far this has gotten. The sodomites have eviscerated the entire foundation of the Republic.
The Declaration is very clear: rights are granted by God to man. Man sets up a government to protect those rights.
The minute government decides it can make up rights, it has defied the founding principles of this nation and sent us headlong into tyranny, and there is, sadly, no true religious liberty in that kind of a society.
Yes. This is very good. Arguments can be made that they just "codify" that religion is truly free from the government as specified in the First Amendment, that it is not directed at anyone, and that they are not a "slippery slope" for religions to to be able to "ignore" the "rights" of homos (they will use that argument!).
And, as said in the beginning of the article, the battle must be fought and thought through before actually being waged; we need to work out how to use the amendments in the courts once they are in place, where they will be challenged even further (see California Prop 8) when they pass. We cannot get discouraged if they fail the first time, or the second or third. We need to create a tidal wave and push them through as many State Constitutions as possible in the briefest amount of time, and keep pushing other States to do so, while pointing at the ones who do pass them and say "See, other States are doing it".
If they fail, and some will, we will need to re-word the amendment and try again (and again and again, if need be). The pressure must be kept up.
I have not seen anyone propose or use the pre-Revolutionary War tactic of the Committee(s) of Correspondence, but it just may be time to do so (and not just for this topic!). Email is too open to government snooping to use, so people will have to actually sit down and write things out (or type and print, as in my case, LOL!) and use snail-mail.
Of course, I'm not in anyone's loop, so some people may already be doing this that I am unaware of. If so, we need a reliable way to expand the web of people involved.
Obviously, I'm not talking about anything illegal, just a way to communicate that won't subject people, or make them feel like they would be subjected to, government scrutiny, which I certainly feel would happen under the current administration of Democratic brownshirts.
No. . .the trick doesn’t start at hijacking the civil rights strategy. . . it starts when we accept the premise that those who engage in a particular behavior (a dysfunctional one, at that)are then worthy of a new identity extended to them from that behavior. We fall into their trap the second we refer to them as “homosexuals” or “gay,” as in “the gay community”. . .no such identity is recognized or protected by the Constitution. . .only human identity is recognized and is endowed with rights. Those who engage in homosexual behavior, being human, are then equally endowed with the same rights as are those who do not engage in homosexual behavior.
The question is this. . .is it in the interest of society to recognize homosexual behavior as being dysfunctional and heterosexual behavior as functional? Yes. . clearly it is. In fact. . it is a self-evident truth of nature and of nature’s God. Those who engage in homosexual behavior and attempt to define themselves as a community, thereof, recognize that they are dependent on heterosexuality continuing. Whereas the opposite, heterosexuality being dependent on homosexuality, will never be the case.
This has all been a complete ruse foisted upon the American public. . .it is just a massive gambit to trick Americans into accepting a behavior that common sense knows is unnatural, dysfunction, corrupt and, ultimately, self destructive. . . .and it should be a self evident truth that if such a behavior is embraced by society, that society will be doomed to destruction. History confirms it already.
......We fall into their trap the second we refer to them as “homosexuals” or “gay,” ......
Which is why Barney Frank should be referred to as “the queee-ah from Massachusetts”
On what grounds? The argument will be made that the animals like it. Lets see some judge refute that.
No.
Always conservative.
“Anti-discrimination laws apply to all aspects of society, justices said, so it follows that they give homosexuals the right to marry;”
Not true. Homosexuals right to marry is the same as heterosexuals right to marry and said right predates the anti-discrimination laws.
Perhaps the problem is in some or all of the laws and regulations that require marriage, thereby discriminating in favor of marriage in order to benefit from the law or regulation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.