What’s Next For Gay Advocates?

So, the Supreme Court decided to rewrite the definition of marriage. Well, fine, now gays, sorry, LGBTQ whatever, can now get married in all of Obama’s 58 states. What now? Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of Freedom To Marry expounds

(NY Times) The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday, that the Constitution guarantees gay people the freedom to marry, is a monumental and inspiring victory. America got it right. Love won. We all did.

That, indeed, is something to celebrate. And now we must get back to work.

Securing protections from discrimination for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans needs to be our priority. In too many parts of the country, people can still be fired, evicted, refused service or even humiliated at stores or restaurants because of their sexual orientation or gender identity — in other words, just for being who they are. (snip)

Federal law, which already rightly protects people from discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, age and religion, should be updated to expressly include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Ah, but here’s the thing: according to the SCOTUS, all rights are equal, hence, any laws specifically mentioning certain groups would give them extra protections, which would violate that “all are equal” ruling. They don’t want equality, they want extra rights at the expense of other people

In addition to the political and legal work, the movement must focus on cultural acceptance. That includes combating the bullying and homelessness that too many young people endure, as well as ensuring that seniors can age with dignity and not be forced back into the closet. The real goal, after all, is not just good law, but good lives.

Forced acceptance. As Erik Erickson has written several times, you will be made to care. And you will be forced to accept. It will all be couched in touchy feely language, with an overtone of a threat.

(Politico) Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.”

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

Since the start of the gay marriage debate, proponents of gay marriage have said “well, that’s just crazy. Legalizing polygamy will never happen.” Though they never say why. The main arguments for gay marriage are about equality and “hey, if people love each other, why should they be stopped from marriage?” Why should those in multiple love, group relationships, be stopped? If they love each other, why can they not have a polygamist or bigamist marriage? Furthermore, if it is all about love, what about a marriage between a legal adult and a legal minor? You can’t just say “that’s crazy, it could never happen!” You need to provide a rational reasoning. Remember when marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman?

Fredrik Deboer eviscerates any argument against group marriages, arguments that have been and will be given in opposition of group marriage from the gay marriage social justice warriors.

Next up, you can bet that the SSM SJWs will intentionally go to churches and synagogues that do not support SSM, demanding to be married. It would be very easy for them to simply go to churches that decided to forgo the teachings of the Bible on marriage, and get married there. But, many will want to make a statement, and will want to involve the Government in forcing compliance by religion. They and their SJW compadres within government will then push to pull the tax exempt statuses from non-compliant churches, threaten lawsuits and hate crime prosecutions. Don’t think so? Who thought bakers would be forced to bake a cake, and be fined exorbitantly for refusing?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!