There are truly two sides to me. I’ve always been a fairly dichotomous person; a contrarian, if you will. I remember in third grade refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance because I didn’t understand why I should pledge loyalty to something I didn’t fully grasp at eight years old. I remember, that same year, casting a paper vote for Jimmy Carter (I drew a peanut on my ballot) because everyone else was voting for Reagan. I was obsessed with Margaret Thatcher and Ayn Rand, but also John Waters and Divine in high school. Those two sides of me still coexist.
This past week, with the Supreme Court casting its imprimatur upon yet another social issue– gay marriage (that, in my opinion, WAS being handled as a STATE/legislative matter, and as more and more people became accepting of it, would’ve been resolved in disparate states), social conservatives, who are hanging on by a proverbial thread in America today, had the death knell dropped on their religious freedom and freedom of expression.
Nothing made that more clear to me than Left’s reaction (arrogant jubilation) to what I feel is a gross, Roe v. Wade-style overreach of the court’s purview.
The day the Supreme Court, in typical 5-4 fashion, allowed same-sex marriage in all 50 states, a little-known local paper called the PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, put themselves on the map when they arbitrarily decided to ban any mention on their Op-Ed pages of anything disparaging gay marriage. In essence, they were censoring differing views on the issue.
Now, notwithstanding the obvious contradictions with the First Amendment rights of the community, this tiny paper decided they were going to silence a significant portion of their readership who offered a differing opinion from the editorial board—BECAUSE THEY COULD. The press knows they won’t be censored. But here’s the rub: YOU will be censored if the press deems you “subversive” or “offensive”. Subversive to the never-ending rush to a liberal utopian fantasy and offensive to what the protected classes liberals in America have deemed so worthy. And that’s what should scare you.
See more:
This is where, not in substance, but in dichotomy, I find myself torn.
I loathe the Left. I loathe every totalitarian, conformist, hipster, fascist, patchouli-clad, ironic-bearded, Urban Outfitters vomited-upon incarnation they take. I think the Left is relentless in its pursuit of total control (mind, body, and soul) and I only wish the Right could be as hardcore vigilant (but, you see, most conservatives have jobs and can’t sit around all day fomenting rage against THE MAN). Therefore, what is leftist thought and leftist deed has become action and policy—i.e., the status quo. I have to begrudgingly respect them for that—for their ability to shove their assbackwards agenda onto the media and the rest of us. But that doesn’t make it right.
However.
I don’t think people choose to be gay. If so, that would be a difficult choice for many people. I think people love who they love, and God bless them for it. As long as you’re not hurting anyone, who am I to judge?
That said: for 5,000 years we have had an institution of marriage, regardless of what the Left chooses to believe, that was instilled in the Bible and which the Left, as much as they claim the institution as misogynist, backwards, and patriarchal, still seem to want to join. (Sidenote: I am not saying all gay people are leftists—they are not. Many are conservatives who are derided in their communities for going against the radical grain, and good for them. But gay activists, by and large, are leftist.)
When you cheapen the word “marriage” to mean whatever society in 2015 wants it to mean, you cheapen the institution. As we’ve already seen in this country and others, polygamy and plural marriage have already been pushed—after all, if a man can marry a man, why can’t I marry two men? Or a man and a cat? Etc.
I have zero problem with civil commitment ceremonies and for conferring inheritance/wealth benefits onto same-sex couples. None. But it’s not marriage.
A leftist reading this essay might guffaw at my presumption, but it’s not just me. It is happening. Former Senator Rick Santorum has been endlessly mocked for his slippery-slope observations about gay marriage leading to God knows what, but he’s been proven correct.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/17/should-plural-marriage-be-legal
There are a plethora of articles backing up this theory, but time is short.
What breaks my heart about this Supreme Court ruling is that states and, as we will soon see, religious (read: Christian) organizations will be given short shrift when it comes to the First Amendment if the hyper-politically correct government brownshirts have their way. And I have no doubt they will.
Free speech, religious freedom, states’ rights, and individual expression are under assault now more than ever. And just you wait to see the societal fallout from all of this rewriting of natural law. It’s coming.
If you choose to disagree, how quickly will the iron fist fall upon you?
Will you be prepared to defend what USED to be?
I will be.
