With all the backslapping and applause in regards to California’s judicial diktat on same-sex marriage, one might think the state’s leading LGBT advocates would be a little forthcoming on “what’s next”. However, David Benkof finds
For the last two weeks, I have been contacting “marriage equality” leaders from San Diego to Sacramento to ask about the impact of redefining marriage on religious freedom.
All have repeatedly refused to disclose their opinions, including prominent lesbian and gay legislators, other elected leaders, and one of the plaintiffs in the celebrated Supreme Court case, Robin Tyler.
Consider that the CA diktat did more than just reject California statutory law of defining marriage as one man and one woman; it radically declared for the first time that sexual orientation is a “suspect class”
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state’s high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard.
With an initiative on California’s November ballot to amend the state constitution to reclaim the definition of marriage from George’s radicalism almost certain, the coyness of the advocates is understandable given the kind of statements Benkof elicited from “marriage-equity” advocates in other parts of the county:
Although California marriage-equality leaders won’t say what impact they expect the new decision to have on religious freedom, activists in other states haven’t been so shy.
A representative of the largest Michigan gay-rights group, known as the Triangle Foundation, and openly gay Washington State Sen. Ed Murray both told me that any person who continues to conduct himself as if what he thinks is God’s definition of marriage is correct, instead of the gay community’s definition, should be fined, fired and even jailed until he relents.
“If you are a public accommodation and you are open to anyone on Main Street that means you must be open to everyone on Main Street. If they don’t do it, that’s contempt and they will go to jail,” says the Triangle Foundation’s Sean Kososky.
Sharon Malheiro, a lawyer and LGBT activist from Des Moines affiliated with the state’s gay-marriage lobby, ONE-IOWA, told me that if a teacher in a marriage-equality state taught that marriage is between a man and a woman, “then it becomes a job performance issue” and the school district should take appropriate action.
Michael Taylor-Judd, the president of the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington state, said if a newspaper writes that a given same-sex marriage wasn’t really a marriage, “it is certainly in the realm of possibility for someone to bring a [libel] suit, and quite possibly to be successful.”
The Triangle Foundation’s Kososky agreed: “I would be sympathetic to some damages.”
In the name of Toleranceâ„¢ self-anointed social betters will sue, fire, fine, jail and drive out anyone that doesn’t agree with them.
Heck, liberty is just such an old-fashioned concept, ya know? I, for one, welcome my new Fabulous and Well-dressed Overlords.
(h/t Eric at Classical Values)
Comment by N. O'Brain on 5/21 @ 4:37 am #
Scratch a lefty, find a fascist.
Comment by Carin- on 5/21 @ 5:24 am #
Gay Marriage, coming soon to a Catholic Church near you OR ELSE.
Comment by Dale on 5/21 @ 5:25 am #
Judicial overreach at its best. Now the next step, silencing those who disagree with you. The definition of marriage has ALWAYS been the joining of a man and woman from two separate families to become a new unique family. This is not about benefits. This is not about hospital policies allow visitation from “family members.” This is pure about how I am allowed to think about other people who have a non-traditional living arrangement.
Personally, I don’t think about them. I don’t care what they do. I could even support arguments for a legal status of “primary legal life partner,” despite the ultimate financial cost in benefits to businesses. A case by case legal and state congressional definition of domestic partnership is fine by me. Just don’t call it marriage. Marriage is, has been, and always will be the joining of two different gendered persons to create a new family.
But, again, this is not about the labeling and rights. This is about limitting what people can say and think about others. And this is about our “betters” correcting the weak-minded populace that is too busy God-bothering while hunting and spitting their chaw of tobacky to understand the nuance of language, legal labels, to understand the joys of…
(thor, please insert appropriate gay sex terminology here. I’m not nuanced enough to do it properly.)
Comment by Dan Collins on 5/21 @ 5:38 am #
If I were a gigolo in CA, I’d be nervous.
Comment by Dan Collins on 5/21 @ 5:40 am #
Do you think there will be a mosque exemption, Carin? Or will the threat of death do the trick all on its own?
Comment by TheGeezer on 5/21 @ 5:54 am #
The persecution of Christians by government, by the worldly, by those who hate Jesus was foretold. The West’s kinder realm for Christians seems to be ending with assaults from materialists and Islamofascists, which doesn’t mean Christianity will disappear; it will simply be more difficult to be one. The Catholic Church will not stop its teaching, even if its preachers are executed.
As Dan asks, what happens when a materialist confronts an Imam with an order to stop preaching Islamic morality concerning homosexuality?
Comment by MarkJ on 5/21 @ 5:58 am #
In the name of Tolerance™ self-anointed social betters will sue, fire, fine, jail and drive out anyone that doesn’t agree with them.
Gee, seems to me that the above approach is less a “solution”…than it is a sure-fire recipe for a civil war.
Comment by Cowboy on 5/21 @ 6:12 am #
See, this here pisses me off. Honestly, I couldn’t ever get worked up about gay marriage because marriage sanctioned by the state is to me merely a legal recognition of what in my church is a SACRAMENT. I figure that if gay or lesbian couples want to take a stab at state sanctioned marriage, more power to them. Government probably shouldn’t be screwing around with things like this, but if it affords those folks some sort of legal recognition, then I am ok with it.
However, if this is a harbinger of attempts to encroach oh religous definitions of marriage, then I will stand up and say “Not in my church, dammit.”
Comment by Cowboy on 5/21 @ 6:13 am #
You know, because the whole separation of church and state thing should really work both ways.
Comment by Cowboy on 5/21 @ 6:13 am #
*on*
Comment by Blind Howling Moonbat on 5/21 @ 6:21 am #
You know, because the whole separation of church and state thing should really work both ways.
Now that is just crazy talk.
Comment by Carin -BONC on 5/21 @ 6:28 am #
I figure that if gay or lesbian couples want to take a stab at state sanctioned marriage, more power to them. Government probably shouldn’t be screwing around with things like this, but if it affords those folks some sort of legal recognition, then I am ok with it.
Plus, shouldn’t gays get the joy of “divorce” as well? Honestly, I think the trial lawyers saw these as opening up a whole new customer base. Lesbians are known for long term relationships … but gay men, not so much.
Comment by Dan Collins on 5/21 @ 7:18 am #
Lots of gay men are in long-term relationships, Carin. My oldest friend (we were in nursery school together) and his partner have been together for 20 years. That doesn’t mean they don’t get a little action on the side, once in a while, but they’re upfront with each other about it.
Comment by Carin- on 5/21 @ 7:30 am #
I know it happens, Dan. I had a good friend in college who was very committed, etc. But, I’ve known many gay men who are more into serial relationships. Studies differ, but gay monogomy is not the norm and statistics (I gotta take my dad to the doc in a minute so can’t use google-foo) show that they have long-term relationships at a much lower rate then breeders.
Will “marriage” change this? I believe it was one of the supporting arguments.
I remember when this first became an issue, and I read an article by a gay man (liberal) who was arguing that he,and other gays, DIDN’T want this. Their lifestyle, in all its fabulousness, was what he wanted. Monogomy and marriage was for breeders.
I tried to find that article about 6 months ago, and had no luck. I wonder why?
Comment by The Lost Dog on 5/21 @ 7:30 am #
When my kid was two, we were visiting friends and I went to see where he had gone. He was sitting in the drivers seat of my car, pretending to drive.
When I said: “Hey! What’s up?”, he stuck his head out the window, and with a huge grin, yelled: “FUCKING MORON!”.
I haven’t thought about that in years, but every time I think about this gay marriage crap (and it IS crap), that is what pops into my mind.
It still makes me laugh, though.
Comment by bergerbilder on 5/21 @ 7:39 am #
If they are now legally “maried”, how could the state legally bar them from adopting children? This is yet another boulder in the oncoming avalanche.
Comment by The Lost Dog on 5/21 @ 7:45 am #
I guess I should add that I have no problem with gays (I am a musician, after all), but this marriage thing is just stupid, and designed by activists to piss of the “masses”.
Well. Good job, idiots.
There is just nothing better than to rub your genitals in the “straight’s” faces. But try to stick your dick (or whatever) in their eye? OOOOOHHH! What a GOOD IDEA! Way to go to find acceptance!
Having government sanctions on long term relationships? Fine by me.
But calling it marriage? Even I, with many gay friends, say “Uh=Uh”. That is absolutely, gayly ridiculous. Even most of my gay friends agree.
“America is well and truly fucked”.
Comment by Evil McGehee on 5/21 @ 8:42 am #
What’s interesting is, the court ruled that state law now has to cover same-sex marriage.
Did it say anything about same-sex divorce?
I mean, who gets custody of the wardrobe?
Pingback by Illegal Aliens and Identity Theft [Dan Collins] on 5/21 @ 9:17 am #
[...] this ties in nicely with Darleen’s post from earlier today, regarding the California court’s decision against the public’s referendum-expressed [...]
Comment by LionDude on 5/21 @ 10:07 am #
Bergerbuilder touches on a good point. When it comes to adoption, is it now illegal to say that the ideal home in which to raise a child is with a present mother and a father? Yes, I realize it doesn’t always work out this way, in that there are single mothers or fathers who do just fine, but I’m referring to what is now considered the IDEAL situation.
If the state historically has had an interest in marriage as providing legitimacy for raising children, then how will the expanded definition of marriage affect child adoption preferences? Unless someone can provide a link or reference, I don’t believe there is any study that shows being raised by same-sex parents is no different than with a mother and a father in the household. This study would take decades to complete with so many variables it would make quantum physicists blush. Hence, has the expanded definition of marriage by the state now essentially sanctioned an unknown social experiment with children being the guinea pigs?
Just asking.
Pingback by Children lose the right to have fathers on 5/21 @ 11:55 am #
[...] social will, and then to fortify that deconstruction of the traditional nuclear family by way of consequences ranging from libel suits to jail time for those who don’t fall in line with the new [...]
Comment by Alec Leamas on 5/21 @ 7:06 pm #
“From my cold, dead hand” applies to so many circumstances anymore.
Pingback by Bullies of the Living Constitution [Darleen Click] on 6/19 @ 1:30 am #
[...] Court Justices issued a diktat that sexual orientation was a suspect class, I wrote wondering when the next shoe would drop. While California same-sex marriage advocates were coy when questioned, others were quite forceful [...]
Pingback by homosexual people hate free speech « A Darkling Glass on 6/19 @ 2:31 pm #
[...] people hate free speech Found via the Protein Wisdom blog, here’s an article that proves my point about gay [...]