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 Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “What’s Next For Gay Advocates?”

  1. John says:

    Yes Teach after the Supremes ruling we can now expect millions of gays deciding that they want to be married in churches such as the Aryam Christian Identity bro Nazi churches . Because FREEDOMZ!!
    Teach people have never had the legal right to be married in the church of their choice
    You should know that

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    People never had the legal right to force a baker to make them a cake or a photographer to to shoot wedding pictures either.
    Retarded johnny should know that.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Yep, the slippery slope. Man on dog marriage! A lesbian making medical decisions about her wife! Filing jointly! A woman marrying her daughter AND her son! Sodom and Gomorrah!

    Yikes conservatives. Your coup is almost complete: the House, the Senate and 5 of 9 Supremes, most statehouses… yet legalized gay marriage was spreading from state to state and was validated by the highest court.

    As you are finding, it’s difficult for a minority, even one as loud, devious, dishonest and well-funded as yours, to suppress the will of the people.

    Your success blocking progress on global warming results solely from the power, wealth and interests of the fossil fuels industry. Eventually truth will out.

    Who are your powerful, well-connected and wealthy sponsors on immigration? None? You’ll lose.

  4. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    The will of the people spoke and was put down in the gay issue. Do you lie to yourself as well? Do you understand anything?

    I was all for gays having unions, until they made it such a big issue. Then I had a conversation with a gay friend about marriage. I asked why it was such an important thing. He said that gays would get the contractual relationship with their partners that straight people received. I told him that it was a bad contract and that he could do better with one off the web even. That resulted in obfuscation making me suspect that deeper motives were at work. I then looked at the way the government gives a ton of perks to married people. My response is to get rid of the marriage perks and get the government out of marriage. It is a religious thing and they should decide who is married. The government can then register any union, even with a dog. For the record, the ones who will most benefit from this will be divorce lawyers. They will make out like bandits.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    I am against gay marriage as I believe homosexuality is a sin. I am also against the idea that the term “marriage” has been redefined and changed from its traditional meaning.

    While I would prefer that the government stay out of the marriage “business” altogether, the fact of the matter is that there are benefits given to married couples that are not available to gay couples that have made the same commitment to each other. Those benefits include such things as tax credits, alimony, insurance benefits, medical access, child custody, access to medical records, access to a partner after an accident, etc.

    I have deep problems in treating people differently in similar situations.

    I would prefer the term be changed away from “marriage” to something else. I don’t care what it is called, but “marriage” should be reserved for a union between a man and a woman.

    As for the law allowing a gay union? As I said, I am against homosexuality because it is a sin, but I do recognize the idea that people should be treated the same.

    In short, this is a case which personifies the idea of “what is moral may not be legal and what is immoral, may be legal.”

  6. john says:

    Sorry drowing puppies “retarded” is no longer OK to use. Sarah Palin would be MOST upset if you used taht word around her or her last child
    tsk tsk
    Yes bakers and photographers have had to be non discriminatory before this ruling, this just added another protected class.

  7. john says:

    and GC that “sin” that gays committ
    : do you consider that to be worse than breaking the dietary laws as set forth in the bible? Is it worse than adultery which calls for DEATH by stoning ( like the muslims do)?
    Do you get to pick and choose those things in the bible which are bigger sins than others?

  8. gitarcarver says:

    john

    It is amazing the depth of your ignorance.

    If I really thought that you were interested in the discussion of the Bible and its contents, I would be more than happy to engage you.

    However, being that your stepping off point is based on false assumptions and accusations, there is little to discuss with you at this point in time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5773 access attempts in the last 7 days.