Dear Bob Chapek: You'll Never Be Woke Enough For the Left

Dear CEO of The Walt Disney Company Bob Chapek:

As you'll see over and over again, you can never be woke enough for the Left.

I'm not talking about liberals. I'm talking about Leftists. There is a difference.

Like many business leaders, you are going to be forced to decide: Attempt to appease the Left (which is futile), or endure their vitriol & hissy fits, and focus on everyone else: liberals, centrists, independents, libertarians, conservatives, the politically disinterested.

Keep in mind the Leftists don't want your company to own anything, create value or payments for shareholders, make decisions about who you hire and how much you pay them, or make profits. No matter how much you try to appease them culturally or politically, they do not believe your company should exist independent of being an arm of centralized government.

The recent battle was over Florida's HB 1557, falsely labeled the "Don't Say Gay" bill by professional liars.

What did the legislation actually say?

• Parents have to be able to access to their child's school records, including health records
• School district staff can't be prohibited from telling parents about their child's health
• Third grade or before, no instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity
• Inform parents at the beginning of the school year what health services are offered and allow the parents to opt their students out of a service
• Third grade or before, any health questionnaire given to students must be approved of by their parent

That's it. What the problem with that? Who objects to that?

Leftists do. They want to be able to use taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate Kindergartners into the Leftist ideologies on sexual orientation and gender identity. So, they want to be able to encourage Kindergarteners to think of their penis as a problem they'll need to remove, and talk with them about sex. And they want to hide from parents that they are doing this. This is evil. This is insanity.

These students shouldn't be subjected to that. They should be learning how to read, write, speak, and understand English; mathematics; and hopefully some geography, history, science, and art.

On one side, you have people who want to be able so sexualize Kindergartners and promote mutilation to them.

On the other side, you have people who want parents to be able to object to this.

This shouldn't be a hard decision.

Yes, there are some very noisy people in your company, on social media, and in media who screech about how this legislation is bad. Perhaps you should do what you can to keep those in your employ from having access to children when they are on your dime? You should definitely not bend over for them.

It's time to stand up to them and say "No, I'm not going to bend over for you."

It is time to stand up to them and tell them the core of your corporation is about family entertainment and you're not going to push the agenda of people who want to sexualize Kindergarteners. If they stop coming to Disneyworld or Disneyland, if they quit working for you, then your company will be better off in the long run.

UPDATE: People who mock your groveling before them because they don't like the medium of presentation are proving my point. There is no appeasing this mob of unstable, unhappy people who are being agitated by people bent on sexualizing children and putting division between children and their parents.

I'm Not Proud of Being White

But I think very highly of a lot of "white" people, just as I think very highly of a lot of people who would have some label other than "white". I'm neither "proud" of being white nor ashamed of it. That's because I had no say in the matter (despite what some "transracial" folks would have me believe). I can say I'm proud to be an American because I could have left the Union and renounced my citizenship. UPDATE: It IS OK to be white. [This entry has been bumped up.]

Lately media and social media SJWs have been giving way too much attention to "white" racists. Yes, they're evil and need to be exposed, but part of exposing them is to note how few and ostracized they are, and not giving them too much attention beyond that. The MSM-SJW Complex (MSC) wants a lot of people to think white racists are everywhere and powerful, and the only way to keep them from hanging everybody is through ceding more of our individual rights to Leftist power, increasing the powers and size of central government.

Hating white people or discriminating against white people based on their skin color is not supporting equality. That should be self-evident, but Leftism has warred against logic, reason, and facts in the name of feelings and breaking the people into squabbling tribal groups.

Leftists will tell you that "racism" can only be done by white people, because it requires power. Call me ignorant, but I understand racism to be thinking of race as important, especially if that is used to mistreat people of a different race. Leftists add systematic oppression as a requirement. Thus, it isn't racism if an African-American business owner tells me he or she won't hire me because I'm white. A lot of people, including some of those Leftists breathlessly tout statistical trends that indicate non-Hispanic or non-Latino white people will soon be a minority in the USA. So what happens to their definition of racism then? My guess is that they will say despite being a minority, even if surpassed in size by another group, racism will still be a white thing because whites will have supposedly retained "too much" power in our systems.

I'm convinced the best way to fight racism is to stop focusing on race and treat people as individuals, not favoring nor disfavoring someone because they would be categorized in the same racial group as you or a category you think needs help. Half a century after the Reverend/Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. proclaimed a dream of treating people according to their character rather than the color of their skin, Leftist "civil rights" activists and professors now say it is racist to do that! They call it racist for me to say "There is one race: human, and someone's 'race' beyond that doesn't matter."

A Reminder That Equal Pay Already Exists

There is no "pay gap" or "wage gap". Equal pay has been the law for a long time, long before Obama took advantage of the ignorance of some.

See here for the truth.

If you're really not getting paid the same as your coworker for the same kind, quality, level, and amount of work, then you're a bad negotiator.

Disunited Methodists

I'm not a member if a United Methodist Church, but my family does have multiple ties to the UMC denomination. UMCs vary widely from place to place. For example, my wife grew up in a UMC in California, and she doesn't recall ever hearing presentation or explanation of the core Gospel until she was attending a university and went to a Christian event with a classmate. She was a bit embarrassed that she'd grown up in a church and yet has missed the central point of Christianity: a proper relationship with Jesus Christ.

The LGBTQQAICDEFGHJKMNOPRSUVWXYZ activists within the denomination are trying to move the organization away from applying what has traditionally been understood as the Biblical teachings of there being men and women, marriage uniting a man and a woman, and reserving sex for marriage.

Remember when the activists said that marriage neutering wouldn't have any effect on churches?

There was a conference in February that address this. If you want the bottom line, skip down to my comments at the end.

Here's what Katherine Jackson reported for Reuters, as I found at Yahoo News (which really got crappy after the most recent corporate acquisition).

The United Methodist Church voted on Tuesday to uphold and strengthen its ban on same-sex marriage and LGBT clergy in a move likely to alienate large numbers of followers who had pushed for reform.

Ban. Ban is loaded language. We're not talking about secular law here. This is a supposedly Christian organization. There's no more a van on "same-sex marriage" than a ban on squared circles or kosher shrimp.

Also, as we'll see, there is no ban on LGBT clergy.

We Should Defend Our Borders

Remember when the latest Leftist panic was guns (again)? As I type this, the Left's panic-du-jour is "children separated from their parents" at the nation's borders. The Left is desperately pushing this panic with everything they have. This is probably an effort to derail momentum for border security (because the Left doesn't actually believe in national borders but will gladly use them to their advantage anyway) and distract from devastating things like the IG Report and Hearings.

Plenty of people generally not the Left have hopped onto this bandwagon, and understandably so. We can all agree it is sad that kids are placed in the position of being detained in a different location than their parents. It looks awful and it sounds awful. But how did things get this way?

It's really awful when a surgeon has to cut into somebody, especially a kid. It looks bad. It's going to cause a lot of pain. It would be great if the surgeon never had to do that. But the surgeon is reacting to events that were set in motion when someone assaulted someone else. Then the victim was brought to the surgeon, who has to deal with the mess with no perfect way forward that looks tidy and won't cause any pain.

What's really going on?

If You're a Social Network Professional or Investor

I hope you can still read this. Certain large tech companies have been silencing or at least restricting content creators and users who aren't in lockstep with the Leftist*/SJW/victicrat doctrines and practices. Some fire or push out employees who deviate from the groupthink.

A viable social networking platform is needed that won't be hostile to conservatives, libertarians, moderates, classical liberals, observant Jews, and conservative/evangelical Christians. Facebook and Twitter are two huge examples of services that have been engaging in problematic practices. A long time ago, Townhall.com, which hosted user blogs, might have been able to evolve into such a service, but that's a long dead issue.

So, if you're a "Silicon Valley", tech, or social network person with technical expertise and/or managerial skills and/or money to invest and you're NOT a Leftist, it behooves you to give the majority of us who aren't Leftists a viable alternative, once that will protect privacy. People will be willing to pay a small monthly or yearly fee or pay for extra services as long as they know they aren't being shadowbanned or otherwise restricted and that the information they've set to "private" won't be shared. People have been leaving Facebook, Twitter, and certain other services. Many more would be willing to jump ship for a viable, user-friendly alternative, or at least would add an account at the new service. Even some Leftists would join, and they should be welcomed as long as they can be prevented from trolling/harassing staff or other users.

I think such a service would offer the ability to:

• network
• form and maintain groups
• schedule/plan/invite to events
• post and share short comments/updates as well as longer-form commentaries and analysis, text, audio, images, videos
• follow/block content and other users
• commenting on content
• private messaging 

The terms of such a service could still prevent or remove activity that encourages or facilitates crime, terrorism, or even actual racism (regardless of the source).

So how about it??? Who will take advantage of the opportunity that is before them???


*Leftism is distinct from classical liberalism. An important difference is that Leftists do not support free speech. There are other examples.

Will He Be Forced to Participate in a Homosexuality Ceremony That Mocks His Faith?

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case that's exactly what we knew would come about if  marriage neutering advocates were able to get the Imperial Judiciary to do their bidding in fundamentally transforming marriage law, which they did.

"We just want to be left alone."
"Stay out of our bedroom."
"We support tolerance!"
"Nobody will be hurt."

Those were lies.

Politically expedient lies, and now the activists seek exactly the opposite of those lies.

One problem with establishing imaginary "rights" is that error begets error.

An obnoxious pair of maladjusted guys, perhaps motivated by hate, deliberately avoided going to many other cake makers and sought out a well-known devout Christian, who holds longstanding, sincere, mainstream religious convictions clearly protected under the First Amendment, and as a result, will not put his artistic expression to use in support of certain events, some of which have nothing at all to do with LGBTQQUIAPPCDEFGHJKMNORSTVWXYZ people at all.

This man was willing to serve these guys.

He simply wasn't agreeable to provide artistic services for and event they said they wanted, an event that he sees as mocking and violating his religious convictions.

This hasn't stopped they homofascist activist groups from saying that gay people were denied service based on their identity, which is a lie. The guys in question didn't suffer a bit.


Yet, this businessman has had to go through a long, expensive, time-consumer battle to defend his basic rights.

If SCOTUS rules the right way, the activists will liken the ruling to mass murder, and they will try to mess with someone else's livelihood, and they will keep going until they get a favorable ruling, because that's how they operate. If SCOTUS rules the wrong way, the activists will hunt and destroy the livelihoods of any similarly devout Christians that they can.

We knew things would get this way.

5. Parents and employees will lose any "opt-out" leverage they have when it comes to promotions of homosexual behavior or neutered marriage.

6. Religious organizations, congregations, and clergy will be pressured or outright forced to perform, host, and affirm same-sex "weddings", and will be prevented from presenting Scriptural teachings about homosexual behavior or marriage uniting the sexes.

Are we about there?

How about standing up to the activists and telling them they've done more than enough to degrade our lives and destroy good institutiona and programs?

The Stupidity of Identity Politics

If you would have asked me if the President of the California NAACP would be in favor of expanding the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors or against it, I would have guessed "in favor". And yet, Alice A. Huffman has a commentary in the Pink Transgender Lady (a.k.a. Los Angeles Times) advising against it, which means I agree Huffman!

State Constitutional Amendment 12, or SCA 12, would allow California voters to amend the state’s Constitution to require that L.A. County expand its Board of Supervisors from five to seven members and create an elected chief executive position with outsize powers and no accountability to the board.

That means voters all over California would get to decide the structure of the Los Angeles county leadership. The Amendment would not change things in any other county.

Currently, all legislative and executive power of the Los Angeles county government (other than whatever powers are retained by elected Department positions such as Sheriff) flows from the five-member board, and the last time an incumbent running for re-election was defeated was in 1980. Members of the board kept getting re-elected until they retired, until statewide term limits were put in place. It is those terms limits that have likely been a major inspiration for the proposed Amendment, as state legislators would very much like to have more elected positions in which to land when they are termed out of Sacramento. There are over ten million residents in the county of Los Angeles, so even if the board had two more members, each one would represent well over a million people, and there's no doubt that a new elected executive would be a Democrat staging position for Governor or President.

What caught my eye, though was that people are touting "diversity" to support and oppose the Amendment.

The War On Women

Thank Chance I'm a man. I'm so glad I'm a man. And I didn't have to announce to anyone that I was now a man, nor did I have to undergo surgical procedures or get hormone treatments to "become a man". (Somehow I survived circumcision and was still able to have a happy, pleasurable sex life, too.) Why am I glad to be a man? Because there's a war on women, of course. A war! It must suck to be a woman. According to what I see on Facebook, Twitter, and political news coverage, women live in deep, constant, crippling, fear every minute of their lives that a U.S. Senator or perhaps a Vice-President (or every other male who isn’t androgynous or feminine) is going to break into their home, rape them, and then force them to carry a life-threatening pregnancy to term and then they'll be punished with raising a child, even perhaps having to cook for it and clean up after it. And the only way to prevent this is through federal funding, programs, and requirements ensuring that women do not have to pay for their own contraception, and, if they get pregnant, using federal tax dollars to pay for abortion, including a ninth-month partial birth abortion. Should the child somehow be born alive, it is war on women to provide aid to that child to keep it alive. War, I tell you! Can't you see it???

Not Marching in Lockstep

A letter from "Adele":

I am in such a discouraged funk about our culture lately. The argument about birth control versus the freedom of religion was the straw that broke this camel’s back! Any discussions about the subject I hear are always women vs. the big bad everyone else. So, here goes...Hey women’s libbers; Hey Planned Parenthood, Hey liberal media...STOP using me as your ploy!! You never asked my opinion so stop speaking for "women" and start speaking for "some women".


You don't speak for me. I am an American; I am a voter; I am a mother of 5; I am a wife and I am a doctor. I do believe the freedom of religion is more important than the birth control pill. I do believe our constitution and it's amendments, fought for by the blood of our fathers, sons and brothers is vastly more important than an employee being forced to pay for something that will allow our sisters, daughters and friends to continue to perpetuate a "safe sex equals freedom" culture: A culture that has left us with an amoral society where young women think 'shacking up' is an integral part of a relationship. A culture where dismembering a 5, 6, even 9mt old baby in a mother’s womb while alive is considered a choice and not murder.


So, all of you who are fighting for the 'cause of women', who are standing up and banging the podium women must have the freedom of choice...ask me my choice! Stop speaking for me! You have made it so when I hear the words 'women’s health' I cringe because I know I am about to be grouped into some ideal that is against every core of my being. Do not group me with your ideals; do not include me with your rhetoric. If you are so concerned about choice then stop stifling mine!


Personally, I think these groups should held accountable for slander. No where in the media do you hear the words "some women". This means I have to be looked at as agreeing simply because I am a woman. I would like a group to speak for all men and see what happens.

That is one of many great letters you can find at DrLaura.com. Good job, Adele!

[Bumped up due to current events.]

Brideless or Groomless "Marriage" is a Modern Invention

From that bastion of right-wing ideology, Wikipedia, comes this history of same-sex unions...

While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.

Emphasis mine. Throughout the entry until we get to the present years, these unions are presented as something other than marriage. It has only been within recent times that any culture, religious system of more than a handful of adherents, or government has started to call brideless or groomless pairings "marriage" and included those "marriages" as the same as the uniting of a bride+groom. The vast majority today still recognize that marriage unites the sexes. Same-sex unions in history were never a widespread and ongoing part of marital systems. If one cleric "married" two men in antiquity, it was an abnormality that wasn't sustained by the culture.

But of course, someone who is willing to deny that the differences between the sexes are significant enough to distinguish marriage from same-sex unions will have no problem spinning history.

Handy Dandy Leftist Democrat Statement Generator

Leftism is based on feelings and emotion and Stage One thinking. This can make consistency difficult to achieve during something as important as a Presidential Election campaign. So to help Leftist Democrats out, I have here this Handy Dandy Leftist Democrat Statement Generator, which should be especially helpful when asked to respond to something said by a Republican.

Whatever the Republican has said, respond with...

"That's [1] and will [2] and is just another example of how Republicans are [3]. This is backed up by [4].

"Democrats, on the other hand, fight your fair share and your rights and want to ensure everyone has equal access to services even if they haven't been lucky enough to get rich."

[1]
sexist
Islamophobic
xenophobic
homophobic
intolerant
racist
bigoted
ignorant
fear mongering
partisan
A Big Lie

[2]
destroy the arts
suppress votes
destroy education
destroy the environment
starve children
give wives cancer
prompt suicides
incite hate crimes
force women into back alleys
kill people

[3]
uncaring
secretive
trying to turn back progress
stuck in the past
out-of-touch
extremist
divisive
anti-science
anti-education
anti-intellectual
anti-worker
anti-woman
mean-spirited
hate-filled
trying to oppress women and minorities
against the poor
trying to force their religion on everyone

[4]
The New York Times
TIME Magazine
MSNBC
the SPLC
the NAACP
GLAAD
NOW
the National Education Association
the APA
the AFL-CIO
the Guttmacher Institute
the United Nations

Then, move on to one of the following, if it will fit:

1. "Oh, so you're against a new federal program? That's just like opposing local fire departments. Conservatives like you opposed ending slavery, too."

2. "Bush did it too, only worse!"

3. "We tried that and it didn't work."

4. "Your opposition to Obama doesn't put food on anyone’s plate."

Legislating For Feelings

In the ideals of American tradition, our laws have been meant to protect our God-given personal rights (such as freedom of speech and religion), protect property, and facilitate and protect honest trade. Where our laws erred is when they sought to infringe upon these things, such as with slavery.  Ideally, someone should be free to do with their property and run their business as they choose, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

In order to rectify past injustices, we implemented laws that prevented employers and landlords from discriminating against people on personal characteristics such as “race”.  But this idea has grown into a nefarious, Orwellian situation where we are now in the disturbing position of passing laws and, even worse - suffering court decisions overturning laws – in an attempt to protect feelings, to keep one person from offending another, to affirm choices in personal behavior that bring nothing productive to general society.

How did we let ourselves be ruled like there is a right not to be offended, or a right to public affirmation of personal choices that should not be society’s concern, especially when these things infringe upon clearly recognized rights to freedom of speech and religion?

I often hear that “freedom of religion doesn’t give you the excuse to perpetrate bigotry”. While some marriage neutering advocates would disagree, I don’t promote bigotry, either in law or personal interaction. However, I do believe that if a gay man wanted to open a business and staff it entirely with other gay men, he should be allowed to do so (without tax funding, of course). Protecting property rights does not mean supporting bigotry. Neither is noticing that there is a difference between the sexes and it is that difference that makes marriage marriage, and also behooves us to license marriage as a state.

When people exercise their rights, sometimes they will do things with which we disagree. Sometimes, someone will be offended, or their feelings will be hurt. That is the price of liberty. As long as someone isn’t harming the physical person of another, slandering or libeling them, or destroying or stealing their property or defrauding them, they should be allowed to do what they want with themselves and their property – including offend someone.

As far as bride+groom marriage licensing hurting the feelings of some gay people – that’s something they should learn to live with or get over. Licenses are issued by the people of a state, and are a privilege – not a right. Like all licenses, we issue marriage licenses for a specific reason, for a specific purpose, and that isn't because we think it is a great idea that this particular couple is planning a life together or that we can see they are in love. We don't issue driver's licenses based on how much we think the person will enjoy driving. A gay person can choose to obtain a marriage license the same way a straight person can. That most gay people do not want to enter in to traditional marriage does not morally obligate the state to change the licensing, despite what any court has ruled.

Finally, just because you have the freedom to do something doesn’t mean you have the right to do something. There can’t be a legitimate right to do what is wrong – only a freedom to do so. And if that wrong infringes on the rights of another, then the freedom to do it will either be curtailed or the action met with legal consequences.

Ideally, anyway.

Neutering Marriage is Not Conservative

Don’t be fooled by marriage neutering advocates who say that neutering marriage is a conservative or limited-government position.

Don’t be fooled by Leftists and other Democrats who say the same thing (Duh… do you think they want to help us?) If it was a conservative or limited-government position, why do you think it was originated and touted by extremists on the Left?

Don’t be fooled by self-identified Republicans and conservatives who have been fooled by the people above.

It isn’t conservative to call a brideless or groomless pairing a marriage. It’s an entirely new concept about 15 years old, in direct conflict with thousands of years of universal human history, legal traditions, and religious practices.

Having it be official government policy that the uniting of a bride and groom is no different than a brideless or groomless pairing is not a limited government position. Rather, it imposes government-enforced social engineering on the people and will lead to further family breakdown and more dependence on the government.

The Republican Party is For White Protestant Christian Men

Can't you see that???

Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman

Best Selling Author Ann Coulter
(Photo by Alex Erde)

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings

Governor Christine Todd Whitman

Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton

Governor Jan Brewer
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao

Governor Marry Fallin

Bestselling Author Michelle Malkin
(Photo by David All)

Governor Nikki Haley

Representative Michelle Bachmann

Governor and Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Senator Susan Collins

Senator Elizabeth Dole

Senator Kay Baily Hutchison

Senator Kelly Ayotte

Senator Lisa Murkowski

Senator Olympia Snowe

Author and syndicated columnist Star Parker
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Governor Susana Martinez

Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

Governor Bobby Jindal
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Governor Brian Sandoval

Secretary of State Colin Powell

Writer David Horowitz
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Author, syndicated columnist, and radio talk show host Dennis Prager
(Photo by Nate Mandos)

Businessman and candidate for the Republican nomination for President Herman Cain
(Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson

Columnist, Mayor, and Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell

Author, columnist, and radio talk show host Larry Elder

Author, media critic, and radio talk show host Michael Medved

Representative Allen West

Representative J.C. Watts

Senator, Candidate for GOP Presidential Nomination Marco Rubio

Senator Mel Martinez

Professor, author, and syndicated columnist Walter E. Williams

NFL Hall of Famer, 2006 candidate for Pennsylvania Governor Lynn Swann

Representative Mia Love
(Photo by Michael Jolley)

Chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele

Senator, Candidate for GOP Presidential Nomination Ted Cruz



















 

Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, executive at AT&T and Lucent, and candidate for the Republican nomination for President (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

 Ben Carson, neurosurgeon and candidate for the Republican nomination for President (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Bruce Jenner, Olympic Gold Medalist decathlete, trans woman











This is just a sample of people recently appointed by Republicans, recently elected to office as Republicans, or outspoken as Republicans. Not one of them is a white Protestant Christian man, although most of them are constantly attacked with racist, religious, or sexist slurs from the Left.

You can find many columnists (not necessary all of them Republicans), including many women, with a diversity of ethnic backgrounds, and a diversity of political viewpoints (but all either "conservative" or for limited government) at Townhall.com.

E Pluribus Unum

According to this Associated Press story by Hope Yen, the rate of "interracial" marriage is rising in the USA, but not as fast as it has risen in the past.

As I've written before, I put interracial in quotes because I believe we are all of one race - human.

The growth of interracial marriages is slowing among U.S.-born Hispanics and Asians. Still, blacks are substantially more likely than before to marry whites.

Here's an example of why the racial categories can be a little ridiculous: how are they counting brides or grooms who are themselves the products of "interracial" coupling?

The number of interracial marriages in the U.S. has risen 20 percent since 2000 to about 4.5 million, according to the latest census figures. While still growing, that number is a marked drop-off from the 65 percent increase between 1990 and 2000.

Well of course there has to be a slowdown at some point in something like this. You can say that the obesity rates have stopped rising as fast once everyone is obese already, for example.

About 8 percent of U.S. marriages are mixed-race, up from 7 percent in 2000.

The sustained rates are much higher than brideless or groomless "marriages".

They Seem To Have Skipped Over Something

Something that made the social networking rounds is the graphic found at this link. Supposedly, it is "How to Explain Marriage Equality to an Idiot"

Tired of hearing the rightwing nutjobs claim that if gays and lesbians can get married, soon people will be marrying their dog or their toaster? Here's a handy dandy chart to help you patiently explain the obvious differences.

Good use of "handy dandy", too. Extra points for that.

Notice what's missing?

The common question asked by people who, like every great civil rights leader in history, like every major religious tradition, like every person involved in writing and adopting the Constitution, and like every President up through this writing, understands that marriage unites a bride and a groom, is "If we change marriage laws to include homosexual relationships, why not polygamous relationships, incestuous relationships, pedophiliac relationships, relationships with animals, and relationships with inanimate objects?"

The text and the graphic completely ignore polygamous and incestuous relationships. I can only guess as to why. Here are my guesses:

1. These people want those relationships to get marriage licenses, too.

2. They realize the same justification they use for neutering marriage licenses also applies to polygamous and incestuous relationships.

Of course, we all know it is ridiculous to compare same-sex relationships to heterosexual polygamy and incest. After all, the latter two kinds of relationships have been historically recognized as valid marriages.

Oh, and by the way, homosexual people can get married, whether they want to or not. What we're opposed to is equating nonmarital relationships, including brideless or groomless relationships, to marriage, not "gays getting married".

Regarding adults marrying children: There are organizations pushing to lower the age of consent, and organizations that advocate the "rights of children" in a way that would also support a child being legally able to consent to marriage over the objections of their own parents.

Regarding "marrying" animals: There are governments seriously considering recognizing some (non-human) animals as persons. Why wouldn't such persons have the right to marry other persons?

And yes, some people have "married" inanimate objects.

The point is, the marriage neutering activists, like the marriage defenders, believe that marriage means something and that whatever doesn't fall into that category isn't marriage. It is a dispute of definitions, not a matter of hatred. The definition that marriage unites a bride and groom has been the universal definition through all of the cultural differences. Two men can't consent to marry each other any more than they can consent to an ash tray being food. Without both a bride and a groom, it isn't marriage, and that some governments have recently said otherwise only shows those governments to be defective, along the line of a government that would label water as cow's milk. One bride, one groom IS marriage equality.

We have our own graphic for people having a tough time understanding this.

Oral Arguments at SCOTUS Over State Resistance to Marriage Neutering

Today is the day.

It wasn't all that long ago that the Supreme Court of the United States handled a marriage neutering case and indicated that the federal government, despite having the Defense of Marriage Act, had to defer to what states called marriage licenses. Thus, if a state had issued a "marriage" license to a groomless couple, the federal government had to recognize them as married for tax purposes.

Will the Court now turn around  and say, "Never mind! States must listen to the federal government on this matter since the federal government (federal courts) are requiring states to neuter their licenses."?



In the prior case, the Court did not find that there was a right to get a state marriage license without a bride or without a groom, only that if a state issued licenses in those cases, the federal government had to recognize them.



It would seem to me that if the 14th Amendment or any other part of our Constitution required states to neuter their licenses, SCOTUS should have said so back then. Ah, but maybe these dances in the courts aren't about ensuring that people have their rights, but rather social engineering at a calculated pace?

There are many larger issues involved here beyond the laws of one state or another, including the nature of rights and what makes something a right, the role of the federal judiciary, the role of states in licensing marriage, and public policy as it relates to family.



Even the MSM, or Marriage Neutering Media, is admitting that the Notorious RBG has more or less announced her decision to support neutering marriage ahead of hearing oral arguments. The shrieking and whining and general hysteria would be unbearable if Scalia had indicated his intention to rebuff the marriage neutering activists. RBG and perhaps another pro-neutering member of the Court should recuse themselves, but of course everything has to be sacrificed on the altar of esteeming homosexual behavior, whether it is sound precedent, obvious differences between men and women, protocol, and anything else that keeps the activists from being able to force everyone to celebrate their orgasms.

The best ruling SCOTUS could issue is to indicate that when they said the federal government needs to defer to states, they meant it, and thereby overturn most of the federal court decisions.


The people who say that neutering marriage, especially through federal judicial activism, will have no result other than simply allowing two men or two women to get a marriage license are either lying or severely naive. The naive people fail to grasp how marriage is part of a systematic way things are organized, both legally and socially.

However, there are ways SCOTUS could rule that could have devastating results beyond the specific issue of marriage neutering, including, but certainly not limited to:

• They could explicitly establish that men and women are interchangeable. Federal law does not currently indicate this. The "Equal Rights Amendment" was never ratified and women are not required, as men are, to register for the draft.
• They could explicitly establish that people who identify as homosexual are a class in the same what that people born black are a class, needing the same kind of civil rights protections.
• Establishing a disconnect in law between marriage and parenting, indicating that marriage has nothing to do with raising children.
• New rights can be created.
• Opening the door wide to removing other requirements in state marriage licensing, such as those restricting the licenses to two unmarried people and restricting the licenses to people who do not have a close degree of consanguinity or previous affinity.

It is possible they could allow the federal rulings imposing marriage neutering stand without explicitly doing these things as a settled matter, but would they handle it that way? And in the long run, won't any ruling they make advancing the neutering of marriage empower the activists to do those things?

Maybe you're somebody who thinks all of those things would be great. And if you honestly admit that, I can respect where you are coming from even though I strongly disagree. But if you've been lying about it, well, you'd better hope that the tactics and precedents you have been using don't come back to bite you when they are used for something you don't like. And if you have just kind of gone along with what you think would make your friends and family and fictional television characters happy, you're in for a rude awakening if the homofascists gain more power. Hopefully, your awakening will not come too late.

Click on the tags to this post for previous postings about this topics.

No Means No

Are we obligated to enshrine something into law simply because a minority has asked us to?

The answer, of course, is no.  Even if that group thinks it is their right, that does not obligate us to do anything and should not obligate a court to rule in their favor. Any group can get organized and ask for something, and then claim that their group is being treated unfairly if they don't get what they want. Any group can claim that something is a right, but it doesn't make it so.

When someone asks for a change in how a state issues licenses, such as marriage licenses, they are asking us (the people of the state) for something. We have the freedom to say "no".

People have a right to form voluntary associations - or not - and to offer their consent - or not.  So, if two women want to share a life together, they are free to do so, and if they can convince someone else to perform a ceremony for them, they can have one or they can even do one themselves. However, just as one woman can't force another woman to live with her, no group can force someone else - such as the people of a state - to consent to change marriage licensing.

Judges are representatives of the people. However, if the people, through their direct vote, have made their nonconsent clear, judges should not counter that.

There simply is no right to a state-issued license, and equal access to that license is already provided.

No means no. No court should force your belief – the belief that you should get a marriage license from us even though you are without a groom or without a bride - on the rest of us.

It's Reasonable to Defend Marriage

Bumping this up from May 2013:

Amy Hall at Stand to Reason blogged around the SCOTUS hearing on the marriage cases. She pointed out that "It's Not About Equality":

The term “marriage equality,” if it means “the right to marry whomever you want,” is simply not an accurate term for what same-sex marriage supporters are advocating—not if they favor any restrictions whatsoever (age, number of people, incest, etc.). The truth is that nearly everyone does favor a definition of marriage that has boundaries and thereby denies “marriage equality” to some category of couple (or group).

As you’re likely to hear this term often this week while the Supreme Court is reviewing Prop 8, below is a reposting of “We’re Arguing Definitions, Not Rights” that can help you move your conversations past the charge that you want to deny people equal rights to the real question: What is marriage?

And for a collection of links to more posts and resources discussing this issue, see “Three-Judge Panel Strikes Down Prop 8.”

From "We're Arguing Definitions, Not Rights:

1. Nearly everyone who thinks the government ought to issue marriage licenses favors defining marriage in some way. That is, they favor excluding some combinations of people (polygamy, incest, etc.), not individuals, from the definition. Even judges. Even you!

All laws discriminate between behavior and/or limit the definition of something.

2. You can't consistently argue that by excluding certain combinations of people, traditional marriage violates equal rights—unless you also argue to remove every single boundary from the definition of marriage and say anyone can marry anyone, in whatever combination of numbers they like.

If the argument is consenting adults have the right to get "marriage" licenses with anyone they want to, then yes, all restrictions on adult relationships would have to be dropped to include everyone.

3. If you're not willing to argue this, then you're for having a definition with boundaries, which puts you on equal footing with the traditional marriage supporters.

4. So the question is, which definition should we use? It's fine for you to argue that your definition of "two people who love each other" is better than my definition of "one man, one woman," or someone else's definition of "one man, multiple women," but we need to start off by understanding that we're arguing definitions, not rights.

Precisely. Everyone has the same rights now. Everyone would have the same rights if licensing is neutered.

It's not unconstitutional to adopt either my or your definition, as long as it's applied equally to every individual. Remember that the Constitution doesn't recognize rights for combinations of people; rights only belong to individuals.

That's a very important point.

So one can't say that a man and five women have a right to get married; one can only say that each individual man or woman has the right to enter into marriage (no individual is excluded). This right is then acted upon according to the boundaries set by the state's definition of what marriage is—boundaries which are equally applied to every individual. You would like to equally apply the boundary of "two people who love each other" (excluding some other combinations), and I would like to apply the boundary of "one man, one woman" to each individual equally.

Later, she wrote Now We Wait for the Ruling

Over at First Things, Glenn Stanton comments on some good questions the Justices asked. I tracked down one of the quotes he cited from Justice Sotomayor to get more of the context:

SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked—and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people…the incest laws, the mother and child…I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?

OLSON: Well, you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages, raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you—if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status.

The first mistake Olson makes here is that he thinks people are being denied marriage because of their sexual orientation (i.e., “their status”). This has never happened. There is no test whatsoever for sexual orientation when a person applies for a marriage license. There is no class of people being told they’re not eligible for marriage. In fact, the exclusion of same-sex couples (that’s same-sex couples, not homosexual citizens) from marriage isn’t about prohibiting something on the basis of bad conduct or the status of a group, it’s about the definition of marriage.

Marriage was not something developed to make homosexual people sad.

If marriage is a particular thing, then everyone has a right to take part in that institution as it stands, regardless of their personal characteristics. But to be part of the institution, they must be part of the institution. They don’t have a right to change that institution into something different simply because they don’t want to be part of it the way it is.

Imagine a public park builds a tennis court so that people can come to play tennis. Nobody should be denied the right to play tennis games there. Period. It’s a public park, open to all. One day, a group of basketball players comes to the park, wanting to play a game, but they find they can’t play basketball on a tennis court. They immediately go to City Hall to complain: “Everyone has the right to competitive exercise with a ball on that court! We’re being denied our rights based on our status as basketball players!” Can you see the problem? The fact that they don’t want to play tennis doesn’t give them the right to demand that the government build a different court at the park. Their right isn’t to “competitive exercise with a ball” (tennis shares that in common with basketball, but it can’t be reduced to that), their right is to play tennis on that court, just like everybody else.

Or, as I like to say, a chess club has no right to demand status as an NFL team, requiring that the NFL sanction chess-playing. Football is not chess.