The “Gay Gestapo” Needs to Be Routed, Liberty Demands It!

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” ~ Last Line, Animal Farm, George Orwell. (h/t, GayPatriot)

This comes way of a h/t by a friend, and is Robert George (via First Things), and was originally linked by Denny Burk:

Mozilla has now made its employment policy clear.

  • No Catholics need apply.
  • Or Evangelical Christians.
  • Or Eastern Orthodox.
  • Or Orthodox Jews.
  • Or Mormons.
  • Or Muslims.

Unless, that is, you are the “right kind” of Catholic, Evangelical, Eastern Orthodox Christian, observant Jew, Mormon, or Muslim, namely, the kind who believes your religious or philosophical tradition is wrong about the nature of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the view now dominant among secular elites is correct. In that case, Mozilla will consider you morally worthy to work for them. Or maybe you can work for them even if you do happen to believe (or should I say “believe”) your faith’s teaching—so long as you keep your mouth shut about it: “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

You are disqualified from employment, however, if you reveal your alleged “bigotry” and “cause pain” by stating your convictions. And you are certainly disqualified if you do anything to advance the historic understanding of marriage as a conjugal union in the public square.

[….]

You can bet it’s not just Mozilla. Now that the bullies have Eich’s head as a trophy on their wall, they will put the heat on every other corporation and major employer. They will pressure them to refuse employment to those who decline to conform their views to the new orthodoxy. And you can also bet that it won’t end with same-sex marriage. Next, it will be support for the pro-life cause that will be treated as moral turpitude in the same way that support for marriage is treated. Do you believe in protecting unborn babies from being slain in the womb? Why, then: “You are a misogynist. You are a hater of women. You are a bigot. We can’t have a person like you working for our company.” And there will be other political and moral issues, too, that will be treated as litmus tests for eligibility for employment. The defenestration of Eich by people at Mozilla for dissenting from the new orthodoxy on marriage is just the beginning.

Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox Christians, Mormons, observant Jews… and others had better stand together and face down the bullies, and they had better do it now, or else they will be resigning themselves and their families to a very unhappy status in this society. A very unhappy status indeed. When tactics of intimidation succeed, their success ensures that they will be used more and more often in more and more contexts to serve more and more causes. And standing up to intimidation will become more and more difficult. And more and more costly. And more and more dangerous.

…read more…

 

As I see it, those who are on the right who are religious better also become familiar with those who are conservatively libertarian who happen to be gay ~ like the people at gaypatriot.net. In other words, Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox Christians, Mormons, observant Jews, and the like shouldn’t be all whom we should join hands with. There are gay men and women who want the Constitutional Republic to succeed, UNLIKE their counter-parts on the left (a majority of leftists in fact). And to my friends who are of the right-leaning/homosexual persuasion, do not dismiss resources like What Is Marriage?, or people who may have a religious worldview that considers the full approval from society on same-sex relations immoral. We fall into the Reagan line of demarcation when he said, “somebody who agrees with you 80% of the time is an 80% friend not a 20% enemy.”

To wit I will post again a paragraph written by Gay Patriot I loved, and that gets to the bottom of the matter… and it is this: don’t be so myopic to see this as an attack of gays, see it as the rotten fruit which infects all conservatively minded views of society, theology, liberty, and what constitutes happiness ~ e.g., LEFTISM.

Since marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined.

My compatriots who are conservatively minded will hear–for instance–Tammy Bruce (above) mention she is FOR gay-marriage… and they simply dismiss her (some will). What she means when she states such a thing and what Andrew Sullivan means are two VERY different things. The former wants the people, state-by-state to be persuaded enough that this is the right step for society in their state/country. She rejects the abuses by judges to usurp the will of the people.

The latter wants it effectively shoved down our throat while acting surprised that the progressive establishment he has supported during his career has — gasp — tyrannical tendencies. (One need only view history and see that pretty much any totalitarian movement in the 20th century have been leftists.) Yesterday, Dennis Prager had some great commentary that builds on this these somewhat:



Some compatriots in the fight for liberty… not totalitarian equality:

Newest attack on freedom: Gay Mafia Targets Oregon Grocer Over Anti-Gay Marriage Facebook Statements

The Intolerance of the Left Exemplified by Mary Cheney

Looking around the legacy medias landscape, headlines are predictable, my favorite however, is this one, “Liz Cheney attacks Mary Cheney’s marriage.”

What? Liz Cheney has said repeatedly this is a states issue… as the Constitution allows. And like many conservative libertarian gay people I know, they also want the courts to stay out of it. HotAir has these two excerpts where Liz explains her position, which the the above article says is “attacking her sisters relationship” .. believing the Constitution and its delegated rights to states is now bigotry.

The unmitigated nerve!

Firstly, it must be pointed out that Tammy Bruce (lesbian) supports Liz… a lot. Mizz’ Bruce likewise has written two books dealing with the militant tendencies of the Left to suppress differing opinions. In her books, “The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds,” and her later book, “The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values,” you are introduced to examples of how the Left tries to suppress not only speech… but thought as well. Two greatly recommended reads from Republitarian.

From the left there seems to be a militarizing of action against divergent thinking. On FaceBook people are unfriended for such thinking, and routinely those who stand for traditional marriage are called bigots. Another example of how this thinking is shoring up comes from The Daily Beast‘s Peter Beinart, who also teaches journalism at the City University of New York.

NewsBusters comments on the above video:

Beinart condemned all opponents of same-sex marriage:

“This has been the right wing’s kind of line for a couple of years now, basically that ‘we just happen to disagree with you about these issues, but of course we love you and respect you and we feel compassion.’ No. We get to a stage as a society which says if you don’t accept that people have the same basic rights as other people, African- Americans, Jews, Muslims, you don’t respect them.”

Liberal blogger Andrew Sullivan said Liz Cheney’s public opposition to same-sex marriage was a “kick in the gut” to her lesbian sister:

“[Y]ou can talk about political matters in an abstract way. But when it comes to your own family, something like someone’s marriage becomes pretty non- negotiable as a matter of respect. And for actually go out there and campaign to deny your sister the very institution that she belongs in, the very marriage that she has cannot but kick Mary in the gut.”

Jeff Toobin perfectly summed up the panel’s liberal New York bias: “And we all sit here on West 58th Street and think the world is changing so quickly. It’s not changing that fast in Wyoming.”

Not to mention that Beinart made a nonsequitur comparison between race and sex:

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not. (Prager)

Another meme recently seen by myself on — you guessed it — FaceBook, is the following:

Really? Homophobia is defined today as anyone who is for traditional marriage… you know, the idea of male/female marriage that pervades every culture, religion, and time (history). The view that the historical status quo is extreme (read here: traditional marriage supporters)… is… well, extreme.

So this gay man explaining why he is against same-sex marriage is a homophobe?

——————————————————
One of the most respected Canadian sociologist/scholar/homosexual, Paul Nathanson, writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves–things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:

Foster the bonding between men and women
Foster the birth and rearing of children
Foster the bonding between men and children
Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults

Note that Nathanson considers these points critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.”

Going further he stated that “same sex marriage is a bad idea” …[he] only opposed “gay marriage, not gay relationships.”

And then I posted this short video of another gay man explaining the importance of marriage and how same-sex marriage will undefine it:

Let us visualize what is being done in the name of “tolerance”

Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:The "Sweep Under the Rug" Argument

  • Racist
  • Sexist
  • Homophobic
  • Islamophobic
  • Imperialist
  • Bigoted
  • Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

  • Peace
  • Fairness
  • Tolerance
  • The poor
  • The disenfranchised
  • The environment

These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.

First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.

Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal — essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal — they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.

Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself — by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.

Examples could fill a book.

Harry Reid, as noted above, supplied a classic one. Instead of grappling with the enormously significant question of how to maintain American identity and values with tens of millions of non-Americans coming into America, the Democratic leader and others on the Left simply label attempts to keep English as a unifying language as “racist.”

Another classic example of liberal non-thought was the reaction to former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers’ mere question about whether the female and male brains were wired differently. Again, instead of grappling with the issue, Harvard and other liberals merely dismissed Summers as “sexist.”

A third example is the use of the term “racist” to end debate about race-based affirmative action or even to describe a Capitol police officer who stops a black congresswoman who has no ID badge.

“Phobic” is the current one-word favorite among liberal dismissals of ideological opponents. It combines instant moral dismissal with instant psychological analysis. If you do not support society redefining marriage to include members of the same sex you are “homophobic” — and further thought is unnecessary. If you articulate a concern about the moral state of Islam today, you are “Islamophobic” — and again further thought is unnecessary. And if you seek to retain English as America’s unifying language, you are not only racist, you are, as the New York Times editorial describes you, “xenophobic” and “Latinophobic,” the latest phobia uncovered by the Left.

There is a steep price paid for the liberal one-wording of complex ideas — the decline of liberal thought. But with more and more Americans graduating college and therefore taught the liberal list of one-word reactions instead of critical thinking, many liberals do not see any pressing need to think through issues. They therefore do not believe they have paid any price at all.

But American society is paying a steep price. Every car that has a bumper sticker declaring “War is not the answer” powerfully testifies to the intellectual decline of the well educated and to the devolution of “liberal thought” into an oxymoron.

The lack of introspection from the left is A M A Z I N G !