Manipulated and coerced by radical activists

judicialactivismNo matter what position you take on gay marriage, every American who values the freedoms of our nation should be deeply disturbed by the methods used to promote it.

Coercive methods to change public opinion on gay marriage 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.”

Then, to seal his case, Justice Kennedy incredulously (and audaciously) added that opposing positions are held with with “no reasoned foundation.”

Yet ironically (and hypocritically) Kennedy offered no reasoned foundation for his position. He simply used the typical manipulative method of radical gay rights groups —  ad hominem attack on anyone who dares to see things differently.

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.”

So are we the people willing to stand silently by at such blatant attacks on freedom?

We must vigourously expose the manipulative efforts to portray those who disagrees with same-sex marriage as driven by a malevolent desire to “disparage” or “injure” homosexuals –especially when they come from the highest court of our land.

We are in deep trouble if we allow such coercive assertions of judicial supremacy over the freedom of the people.

We also must 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-ground against the denounced immorality of those who simply choose to 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.”

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 only acts with a purpose ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’ fellow human beings who are homosexual.

“It is one thing, wrote 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, enemies of the human race.”

In a warning to the Court, 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 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).

Steve Cornell

Rob Bell and Oprah Winfrey on Homosexuality

The sad thing is that Rob Bell is just repeating another form of the same separatists fundamentalism that turned him off to his spiritual predecessors.

Bell’s efforts to appear compassionately inclusive are cover-ups for his separatist arrogance toward those who dare to see things differently from him.

His condescending comment about the church’s best argument being a quotation of 2000-year-old letters is an example of his brand of fundamentalism. It’s an underhanded way of slamming people who actually believe in the enduring validity of Scripture. They are nothing more than Neanderthal idiots who are out of touch with reality.

Of course, the freedom Bell and his wife have to say such things is largely based on a 200-year-old document.

How should we receive the words Bell’s wife read from his book?

“Marriage, gay and straight, is a gift to the world because the world needs more not less. Love, fidelity, commitment, devotion and sacrifice.”

Is this an authoritative word for us? On what do they base this moral and social conclusion? If this is just their opinion, they need to make a case for why it is binding on others. Do they respectfully endorse the freedom of others to disagree with them?

If they base this on portions of the Bible, will they help us pick-and-choose the parts of the Bible we should continue to follow despite the 2000 year issue?

This strikes me (forgive the expression) as a bit of sucking up to what is perceived to be a majority viewpoint. But the majority of people in America do not endorse gay marriage as good for society. Bell has naively fallen for a media effort to make gullible people think that it’s a majority viewpoint.

Worse yet, after arriving at what he thinks to be the cultural shift, he offer himself as a compassionate (in touch) leader of change.

So very sad.

Bell’s brand of fundamentalism is far more divisive than he pretends with his strained efforts to be compassionately inclusive. We don’t need any more of this kind of condescending, exclusive attitude in the culture or the Church.

Consider a better way to resolve the gay marriage debate here

Steve Cornell

See also: Tolerance as a strategy, not a virtue

6 Links worth seeing

‘Kids Are Resilient’ and 7 Other Lies Divorcing Parents Should Stop Believing 

  • As a former divorce mediator, and current couples and family mediator, I have heard every excuse that            parents use to feel better about breaking up their family. In this article, I’ve outlined several of the most common lies that you might be telling yourself if you’re considering divorce.”

For years I pleaded with God to make me straight, So why did my prayers go unanswered?

  • “…. when I grew up pleading with God to make me straight, I had no real interest in God Himself. I wasn’t praying for God to do this because I loved Him or wanted to live my life for Him. I was actually pretty unconcerned about Him, to be honest. I wanted God to take away my same sex desires for my own benefit – so that I could fit in, be normal, be one of the guys, and even so that I could just have sex with girls like all of my friends were. < — So I obviously wasn’t worried about being sexually moral. I just wanted to be sexually normal.”

My Marriage Wasn’t Meant to Be

  • “Once you marry, you are meant for the person that you married and no one else. You didn’t marry them because you were meant for them, you are meant for them because you married them. There is nobody else. There is no other ‘right’ person at that point.”

Why are moms so tired?

  • “Mothers of young children – particularly stay-at-home moms – tend to get a bad rap. Why doesn’t she do her hair more often? She seems to have a disproportional amount of yoga pants. I’m not sure why she refers to herself in third person. Sure, mothers may sleep a little less and be busy at home during this season, I have another theory on why we can be so tired even when it seems (to the outside world particularly) like we never do much of anything. Why are moms so tired? I have a theory on that.”

Ten ways to thrive in the face of pastoral challenges

  • “We must remember … that wherever God calls, He also enables. God did not call us to be fruitless and unprofitable. He has a plan and purpose for His leaders, and leadership can be more effective if we follow some very practical and thoroughly scriptural guidelines.”

23 Things That Love Is

  • “With Valentine’s Day fast approaching, here’s a gospel-centered reminder about how to love. But, you don’t have to be romantically in love to find this list practical. Every healthy relationship requires love and sacrifice, so if you’re a parent, child, sibling, neighbor, pastor, or co-worker, this list is for you.”

Steve Cornell

President Obama’s executive order for LBGT

In light of President Obama’s recent executive order banning workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees of federal contractors and the federal government, it’s important to review the seven tactics used to change public opinion on this matter (see them here) and review the word games used to move from sexual preference to sexual orientation (see here).

Peaceful existence in a nation rich in multi-ethnic, multi-cultural diversity requires from citizens mutual civility and respect. Requiring such goodwill is good for the nation. People who (within the law) choose different beliefs, morals and lifestyles, must be asked to live peacefully with one another. We’ve made great strides in promoting this kind of respect on matters of race and gender and special laws protecting the disabled.

The inclusion of sexual preferences as a civil right on the same level as race and gender is a deeply misguided decision based on a false comparison that will unnecessarily disturb peace and freedom.

All civilized people have laws restricting some types of sexual behavior. Rape, incest and all sexual contact between adults and children are and should remain illegal. Beyond these restrictions, consenting adults are free to live their sexual preferences. But to ask our nation to make new and special laws for same-sex preferences is to force the lifestyle choices of others on everyone. If a homosexual lifestyle becomes a protected status equal with race and gender, people will not be free to morally oppose homosexual behavior. This is an unnecessary violation of freedom that will backfire on those who choose to live homosexual lifestyles.

Steve Cornell

This is outrageous and dangerous

Free speech not so free when discussing gay rights 

By Cal Thomas

Once, Social Security was the “third rail” of politics. Touch it and face political death. Now it is homosexuality. Criticize anything gay people do and you risk ostracism, fines, suspension or loss of your livelihood.

Michael Sam, the first openly gay player to be drafted by a National Football League team — the St. Louis Rams picked him 249th in the last round — is being treated by the media and those in the gay rights movement as the equivalent of an early American pioneer.

Miami Dolphins safety Don Jones, apparently, didn’t get the memo. Jones tweeted “OMG” and “horrible” after he saw Sam and his boyfriend kiss each other live on ESPN. His tweet was quickly taken down, but the political correctness police swooped in anyway. Jones has been fined and suspended. He’s also being forced to attend “educational training” to get his “mind right,” to borrow a phrase from the film “Cool Hand Luke.” This sounds like the old communist “re-education” camps.

Dolphins Coach Joe Philbin called Jones’ comment “inappropriate and unacceptable.” Jones issued a statement that read like it had been written by a lawyer, apologizing for his “inappropriate” tweet and taking “full responsibility” for his comment.

How quickly things have changed from the recent experiences of Tim Tebow. When the quarterback heroically led the Denver Broncos to a playoff victory in 2012 and dropped to one knee, as he often did to express gratitude to God (a move that quickly became known as “Tebowing,” which spawned countless YouTube parodies), he was widely ridiculed by many of the same entities that now defend Michael Sam, including some NFL players and even “Saturday Night Live,” which in a skit had “Jesus” offering Tebow advice while sitting next to him on a locker room bench.

When the Broncos released Tebow, he was mocked again, not only for his faith, but for claiming to be a virgin who wanted to save himself for marriage. In an increasingly secular and licentious culture this sort of thinking and expression, apparently, must be silenced.

Read the rest here

See also:

 

No public safe zone for disagreeing with gay lifestyle

simple-300x388Once again there is no public safe zone for disagreeing with the gay lifestyle. If you doubt it, just ask the Benham brothers or Miami Dolphins safety, Don Jones.

It’s pure craziness that a citizen of America cannot publicly state his belief that marriage is meant for male and female without risking accusations of hate and bigotry? Citizens are only safe to publicly endorse gay lifestyles and homosexuals can publicly say whatever they want about their private sexual preferences. 

It’s even more crazy to think that all of this is being promoted based on the false premise that being gay is equal with one’s race. Are sexual preferences and acts really unalterable? Are we unable to ask people to restrain sexual desires and acts? We certainly can’t ask people of race to stop being the race they were born with. 

Let’s be honest about the manipulative agenda behind this false comparison and where it’s leading us. If we make sexual choices of individuals civil-rights comparable to race and gender, we’ll open a social and legal Pandora’s box. Citizens will not be permitted to morally oppose homosexual behavior without risking accusations of discrimination, hate and racism. Federal law will be used against the freedoms of Americans who believe and teach a different view of marriage and sexuality.

It’s foolish to treat sexual preferences as equivalent with race or gender. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that supports such a comparison. But the comparison is what feeds accusations of bigotry, hate and legal claims of discrimination. I know many people who are morally opposed to homosexuality but are not at all discriminatory or hateful toward those who choose a different sexual lifestyle. I am one of them.

We must expose this false comparison as a manipulative threat to civility and liberty. It also runs the risk of creating a counter group who could claim discrimination against their freedoms to believe and teach their own morality. Where will this path lead us as a nation? Where is it leading us now? Ask the Benham brothers and NFL player, Don Jones.

If someone dares to publicly say that he does not agree with gay marriage, he is likely to be reprimanded and possibly ostracized. We can trash Tim Tebow for his faith all day without consequence, but we dare not say anything about Michael Sam’s preference for sex with men. We are being socially coerced to remain silent when homosexuals openly flaunt their sexual preferences. Perhaps Michael Sam will be an “uncuttable” player on a team too afraid of risking accusations of hate and bigotry. 

Those who oppose gay marriage on moral grounds are now being subjected to discrimination and exclusion in ways that will only promote anger in a free nation. To deny people their freedoms and falsely accuse them of hateful motivations only causes civil unrest.

Those who take a different view on homosexual behavior are now the targets of condescending ridicule, hate speech, name-calling and scornful ad hominem. This behavior is a violation of the kind of civil debate we need in democratic process. It’s also coercion and manipulation of the worst kind.

If you oppose gay marriage, you’re told that you have irrational phobias; that you’re a hate-monger, bigot and guilty of discrimination. Why do people allow this kind of school-yard bullying to scare them into acquiescing to a militant agenda to force one sexual lifestyle on the vast majority of Americans?

Teaching people to treat each other with respect is a better alternative to forced affirmation. Tolerance is about treating others with respect when you disagree with them. Telling people they’re not permitted to disagree about moral lifestyles is coercion, not tolerance.

It’s ironic how intolerance and bigotry once wrongly shown toward people who prefer a gay lifestyle is now aimed at anyone who dares to morally disagree with homosexual lifestyles.

We must see through the manipulation and slanderous accusations being used against those who take a different view of sexuality and marriage. Let’s courageously stand for our convictions and send a strong message that we won’t put up with the absurd and irrational political correctness being forced on us.

This isn’t about the rights of consenting adults to do what they desire sexually. We all have those rights — equally shared by all Americans. This is about an arrogant insistence that the entire nation conform to the sexual choices of two percent of the people. 

Steve Cornell

 See: “Sexual preference or Sexual orientation?