Mr. President . . .
PC or “politically correct” is just a mushy term for fascism. It means you shouldn’t, or in this case, can’t say or do anything that these activists don’t agree with. And if you do, then you’ll be made to pay for it. With your job, or worse. It’s as if they have their own version of the 1st Amendment. Politically, this is an invention of Saul Alinsky. Instead of debating the issues, you try to shut the opponent up, if not destroy him personally. This is exactly what happened here.
What Brendan Eich, CEO and creator of the popular web browser Mozilla did, was give $1000 to the Proposition 8 initiative in California, in 2008. That was the proposition that Californians approved by an overwhelming majority that said simply, that marriage is between a man and a woman. It was the same position that President Obama had at the same time. It was also what the 9th Circus Court of Appeals overturned.
But unlike Obama, he didn’t change his mind (for campaign cash). And unlike Obama, he didn’t go public and advocate his position. He merely exercised his right to participate affirmatively in the initiative, made a contribution to the cause, and went about his own business.
It was the little fascist hetero-phobic bigots that searched public records to find, then target for persecution, people who contributed to Prop 8.
The reaction from The White House about this is crickets. Any other President of the United States would be the first to publicly condemn that kind of retribution as being not only intolerant, but as an attack on the free speech guarantee of the 1st Amendment. You know, that document he swore on a stack of bibles to protect and defend.
Link: Mozilla CEO Eich resigns after gay-marriage controversy
There’s no better example why Progressives put so much emphasis on stacking the courts with fellow travelers who they know will advance the agenda, even if it means ignoring the law and overturning laws created under due process. But this decision goes beyond ignoring the law. This federal judge, Arenda Wright Allen, in striking down 
Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage, in the first page of her opinion wrote, “Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal. Surely this means all of us.”
The low information crowd, like this person (gender of whom is not clear) of course eat this up. No doubt glad that a judge gave them what they wanted, which was the new definition of marriage. Well, it did take a judge. But a judge that has her head up her ass where the law is concerned.
For it is the Declaration of Independence that says “all men are created equal.” That was the document that told King George III to go F himself. That we are no longer subjects of the Crown. And that we, the colonies, are our own keeper.
This case was based around the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Sorry but, gays are not prevented from getting married as Judge Allen suggests Virginia’s ban on gay marriage says. A gay man can marry any woman (gay or straight) he wants, and a lesbian can marry any man (gay or straight) she wants. In that respect, both straights and gays have the same right to marry and have equal protection to do just that.
Croats voted overwhelmingly in favor of defining marriage in the constitution as a “union of man and woman” on Sunday. Croatia now shares its constitutional definition of marriage with Belarus, Poland, Moldova, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Serbia.
Almost 66 percent of those who voted in the referendum in the new European Union member endorsed the initiative, launched by the Catholic group “In the Name of the Family”, according to preliminary results on Sunday night. Turnout was 37 percent. The vote was not surprising given that 90 percent of Croatia is Roman Catholic.
Current law in Croatia states that marriage is between a man and woman. The point of the constitutional referendum was to insure that no laws would or could change that definition, short of a constitutional amendment which would need a two-thirds vote, 66 percent. Despite the overwhelming majority of the effort to put it in the constitution, the Croatian government was opposed to it but will comply with the referendum. The government will be making laws to grant equal rights to same-sex couples instead of changing or expanding the definition of the word. It is also considering changes to the constitutional referendum process to restrict the ability for the public to start changes to it.
It is instructive to see the liberal bias in the news reporting of the referendum. More than just defining the meaning of the word in the constitution, there are headlines like “Same-sex marriage ban divides Croatia” and “Croatians Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage.” Choosing automatic victim status, in true liberal fashion, Croatians didn’t vote for the normal definition of marriage, they voted against gays. There was no same-sex marriage ban. In Croatia, same-sex marriage isn’t now and never has been legal. And if anything, the referendum united Croatia on what marriage is. It didn’t divide it.
As one would expect, ‘tolerance’ to the gay movement means exactly the opposite of what the dictionary would suggest. Case in point is President-elect Barack Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.
Upset over the fact that the minister actually believes his religion and lives his life accordingly, some feel that Obama is blowing off the LGBT sector of humanity. For his part, Obama’s choice is seen as a conciliatory gesture toward social conservatives who opposed him in November. You know, reaching out. Isn’t it curious that appealing to mainstream America is seen as reaching out? On the other hand, if Barack is not reaching out, does that mean that he is dissing the LGBT’s, or just acting like any other president-elect would?
Rick Warren, the senior pastor of Saddleback Church in southern California, opposes abortion rights but has taken more liberal stances on the government role in fighting poverty, and backed away from other evangelicals’ staunch support for economic conservatism. But it’s his support for the California constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that drew the most heated criticism from Democrats Wednesday.
“Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans,” the president of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solomonese, wrote Obama Wednesday. “[W]e feel a deep level of disrespect when one of architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination.”
In his article, notice too the connection Ben Smith draws between the LGBT group and Democrats, known to be tolerant of just about anything. Democrats’ alleged displeasure over California’s approval of a constitutional amendment to ban gay-marriage is misplaced. California is as blue a state as it gets, and they voted for it. The displeasure lies primarily in the LGBT camp. On the whole, I have more confidence than Smith does that democrats are not as intolerant as the gay community is. Am I wrong?
links: Gay leaders furious with Obama
Where the Left and the so-called ‘gay rights’ movement is concerned, it appears that the only kind of elections they accept are the ones that go ‘their way.’ There have been ballot initiatives in 30 states so far that felt compelled to legislate the definition of marriage as a union between members of the opposite sex, and those measures passed in all of them. Given the opportunity to vote on it, it passes every time. Most recently in California and Florida.
Yesterday, we got a chance to see just how tolerant proponents of ‘gay marriage’ can be by staging protests, some not so peaceful, all around the country.
At Mount Hope Church in Michigan, a radical homosexual group disrupted an evangelical church service last Sunday. The activists rushed the pulpit, throwing condoms and buckets of glitter, using noisemakers and megaphones to scream at churchgoers and frighten children. Women ran to the pulpit and began to kiss; others shouted, “Jesus was gay!” Protests erupted outside Mormon temples in Utah and Seattle to protest the church’s support for the California marriage amendment.
Their strategy to link their cause to ‘civil rights’ simply does not fly with Americans, and certainly not with Black Americans. There is no right that straight Americans have that gay Americans do not have when it comes to marriage.
A gay man is just as free to marry a woman as I am. Similarly, a
gay woman is free to marry a man. No problem. No one is preventing gays from getting married. Gays need to get a grip on the fact that they are not the mainstream of general society and learn to live with that fact, rather than trying to turn society upside down to suit their purpose, using judges that should be disbarred and politicians that should be arrested for blatantly violating the law.
I don’t believe ‘marriage’ has anything to do with rights. If it’s rights they’re after, then legislate some rights, call it a civil union, or even ‘gay married,’ but not simply ‘married.’ The latter being reserved for respect and preservation of traditional family values. Marriage is something that happens between members of the opposite sex. A judge can’t change the definition of marriage. Society via legislatures can, and I hope I’m not around if/when that ever happens.
Getting ‘rights’ for the gay lifestyle isn’t, on its face, a bad idea. Trying to equate it to normal heterosexual marriage however, is.
If gays were as proud of their situation as they seem to be, then one would think they would also be proud of that which defines them. Why not invent another hyphenated class to further delineate us? Along with ?-Americans (insert your word of choice), we’ll now have Gay-Americans. And Gay-Americans can be “gay married.” That seems to me to be a fair solution for gays that are tolerant of societal norms.
That would work, if only “tolerance” wasn’t missing from the lexicon of the gay “movement.”
related links: Gays And Marriage | Same-Sex Movement Demands Tolerance But Won’t Show Any
Meet Glenn McCall, the first black GOP chairman for York County, South Carolina.
“People feel that just because I’m African-American, I should be a Democrat,” McCall, 52, said Monday, two days after being elected without opposition during the county party convention.
“I feel I need to stand on my own convictions and values.”McCall, currently the only black GOP chairman statewide, said the party’s platform on issues such as abortion and gay marriage resonate with him. He said his faith drives his politics.
McCall hopes more black conservatives will get involved with the GOP. Here Here
After all the media coverage of demonstrations and court cases, who didn’t have the impression that there was genuine demand for civil unions, as the New Jersey legislature coded their version of ‘gay marriage?’ So much so that the law needed to be changed. Apparently not, judging from the number of civil unions that have actually taken place. Only 230 have decided to take the plunge. 219 of those were in South Jersey.
About 230 gay couples – just a fraction of those living in New Jersey – have entered into civil unions in the month since the state began allowing the ceremonies, according to state figures released yesterday.
I’ll leave it to the so-called experts to figure out why the numbers are as low as they are, but one can’t deny that expectations of something higher than that could very well be the product of all the media hype promoting, promulgating the gay agenda over the last couple years. Controversy sells newspapers.
The state Department of Health and Senior Services had received 219 applications for civil-union licenses from local registrars as of Monday. The breakdown by county in southern New Jersey is:
Atlantic 14 Burlington 10 Camden 14 Cape May 8 Cumberland 6 Gloucester 7 Ocean 11 Salem 1 SOURCE: New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services
There seems to be no participation in North Jersey, compared to South Jersey. Only 11 from the most densely populated part of the state, and 219 in the southern half. Why is that? It is also odd that Cape May, with its reputation for a large gay population, registered only 8.
I have no problem with ‘gays’ getting married. A gay man is just as free to marry a woman as I am. Similarly, a gay woman is free to marry a man. No problem. No one is preventing gays from getting married. Gays need to get a grip on the fact that they are not the mainstream of general society and learn to live with that fact, rather than trying to turn society upside down to suit their purpose, using judges that should be disbarred and politicians that should be arrested for blatantly violating the law.
I don’t believe ‘marriage’ has anything to do with rights. If it’s rights they’re after, then legislate some rights, call it a civil union, or even ‘gay married,’ but not simply ‘married.’ The latter being reserved for respect and preservation of traditional family values. Marriage is something that happens between members of the opposite sex. A judge can’t change the definition of marriage. Society via legislatures can, and I hope I’m not around if/when that ever happens.
Getting ‘rights’ for the gay lifestyle isn’t, on its face, a bad idea. Trying to equate it to normal heterosexual marriage is, however.
If gays were as proud of their situation as they seem to be, then one would think they would also be proud of that which defines them. Why not invent another hyphenated class to further delineate us? Along with ?-Americans (insert your word of choice), we’ll now have Gay-Americans. And Gay-Americans can be “gay married.” That seems to me to be a fair solution for gays that are tolerant of societal norms.
That would work, if only “tolerance” wasn’t missing from the lexicon of the gay “movement.”
ref: NewsMax
