No matter your opinion on gay marriage, every American who values freedom should be deeply disturbed by the methods used to promote it.
Use of coercion, manipulation, and false accusation will only result in social unrest and a deeply divided nation.
Coercive methods to change public opinion reached a new level with the startling words from Supreme Court Justice Kennedy in 1996 declaring that any opposing judgment on the homosexual lifestyle can come only from a desire to “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” “fellow human beings who are homosexual.”
Justice Kennedy incredulously (and audaciously) added that opposing positions on this matter are held with with “no reasoned foundation.”
Yet ironically (and hypocritically) Kennedy offered no reasoned foundation for his position. He used manipulative Ad Hominem against anyone who dares to see things differently from him.
This is recklessly shameful behavior for one who wears the black robe at such a high level.
Justice Scalia reminded the court that the founding fathers created a judiciary with limited power in order to guard the people’s “right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive.”
Are We the people going to respond to such blatant attacks on freedom?
Call to action
- Let’s take every opportunity to expose manipulative efforts to falsely portray those who disagrees with same-sex marriage as driven by nothing but a malevolent desire to “disparage” or “injure” homosexuals.
We’re in deep trouble if we allow such coercive assertions of judicial supremacy over the freedom of the people.
- Let’s also take every opportunity to expose the incredible hypocrisy of people who have insisted for years that there are no categorical, absolute moral truths now presenting themselves on some kind of moral high as if they can speak with categorical absolute authority against those who take a different position on gay marriage.
Justice Scalia reasonably and repeatedly exposed the dangerous error of the radical effort to coerce societal compliance with gay marriage.
- “[T]o defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution.”
Question – Are we really gullible enough to buy the line that any form of opposition to gay marriage is “beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement”?
The radical gay activist agenda wants us to believe that anyone who stands for traditional marriage acts only with the purpose to ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’ fellow human beings who are homosexual.
“It is one thing,” wrote Justice Scalia, “for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, (enemy of mankind) enemies of the human race.”
In a warning to the Court, Justice Scalia, suggested that rulings on the issue of gay marriage risk cheating “both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better.”
A recent challenge to the strongest argument for same-sex marriage
In a thought-provoking piece by Hadley Arkes, he perceptively suggested that,
- “The strongest argument made by the proponents of same-sex marriage just happens to be the source of the strongest leverage against their position. It establishes the properties or the terms of argument that the advocates of same-sex marriage simply cannot meet. I call this the jujitsu of same-sex marriage.” (see: “The jujitsu of same-sex marriage” from First Things).