Posted on 10/10/2014 8:17:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
In what sounded more like a gay activist screed in a high-school publication than a serious editorial in a major newspaper, the Charlotte Observer has officially declared war on people of faith and conservative moral values, mocking those who believe there is the slightest rational reason to resist the radical redefinition of marriage.
Making no attempt to hide its disdain for the conservative, historic position, and gleefully mocking the views of the majority of North Carolinians, the editorial begins with three sentences ending in exclamation points – when is the last time you have seen that in a major editorial? – deriding the idea that there could be any negative consequences to redefining marriage.
In fact, after scorning a circumspect quote from Tony Perkins on Monday’s Supreme Court decision not to hear several cases addressing the redefining of marriage, the Observer states, “All that’s missing is Bill Murray in the movie ‘Ghostbusters’ predicting ‘a disaster of biblical proportions … human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together … mass hysteria!’”
Is the editorial staff at the Observer ignorant of the fact that, throughout the centuries, there have been homosexual relationships in many different societies, and yet no society sought to redefine marriage, even where homosexuality was approved? Could there be a reason for this?
Are the editors unaware that respected gay activists have suggested that their way of marriage – sometimes called being “monogamish” or open – will help to change and loosen up heterosexual marriages?
Is there nothing to the fact that, in England, a woman can be a husband and a man can be a wife? That in California, a new bill is calling for lesbian mothers to be able to be listed as fathers on their children’s birth certificates (and vice versa for gay men)?
Is it possible that two mothers do not equal a father and that two fathers do not equal a mother? Is it possible that it is not in the best interest of children to deprive them willfully of either their mother or father? Have the editors read the agonizing stories of children produced by anonymous sperm donors (a very common occurrence among lesbian couples in particular)?
Should we not take a deep breath and think through the consequences of “marriage equality”? Should we not listen to lawyers who are arguing for consensual adult incest based on “marriage equality for all”?
Are the editors unaware of scores and scores of cases across America in which our freedoms of conscience, speech, and religion are being trampled underfoot in the name of gay activism?
And do millions of Christians simply discard the words of Jesus, reiterating the teaching of Genesis, that marriage, by God’s design (implying biological, emotional, and spiritual compatibility) is the union of one man and one woman for life (see Matthew 19).
What moves many of us to stand against the redefinition of marriage is not any animus towards the LGBT community (although they will surely perceive it as such) but rather a desire to preserve what is best for our society.
Rather than engaging the issues seriously, the Observer has chosen to respond with sophomoric mockery and triumphalism, marking a shameful day in the history of this venerable publication.
Shocked that it would be posted in a southern American newspaper to begin with.
The Observer is only snarky and juvenile on days ending in Y.
The less said about their readership commentariat the better.
Maybe some community member will write them and ask if the next word to be redefined to make a minority group feel better about themselves will be the term ‘pedophilia’. Oh wait, that is happening already. As a nation, we are running toward the cliff.
“Shocked that it would be posted in a southern American newspaper to begin with.”
Kinda depends on the writer and editor, they both could be from san fag cisco, that might explain it.
The best way to send a message is for those who subscribe to the paper to quit their subscription. It’s amazing how loss of revenue tends to get their attention.
Comments at the link are interesting, didn’t see any agreeing with the editorial but many condemning it..
Love your idea but the crowd of that rag would file 13. Is going to have to be handled another way and that will have to involve the subscribers. Long shot would be a letter to the editor but am willing to bet you knew that truth.
“Monday’s Supreme Court decision not to hear several cases addressing the redefining of marriage”
Their P.O.ed because the SCOTUS will not take it up and are using the newspaper to show their displeasure, much like a small child throwing a temper tantrum. These people are used to getting their way and aren’t used to hearing the word NO. Hmmm. sounds like another “protected” class of people I know.
More like Harlot Observers.
Those who embrace and promote evil and wickedness will not be graduated to God’s heaven.
Can’t be any more of a Loser than that so hang on to His unchanging word.
Send a message, this Sunday pastors encourage church members to avoid buying that newspaper. Use that money to help local charities instead.
Clearly the op ed managers lack the ability to argue their position without insulting their customer. Bad move for them.
It was semi OK up until the late 80s from what I remember. The alternative was the abysmal Rock Hill Herald which I hear has only gotten even worse.
I put the midlands daily worker paper The State just barely above the herald.
We used to live in the LA area. I stopped our subscription to the LATimes during the Whitewater mess. The paper had credited Clinton’s lawyers with ‘sophisticated maneuverings’ while damning Starr’s lawyers with ‘desperate tactics’. I figured both sides were behaving the same and decided I could no longer live with the blatant bias. I guess I was a slow learner as we had been receiving the paper for 7 years. I know the LATimes didn’t suffer but I sure felt better.
For multiple centuries societies and cultures have functioned with man and woman marriages. It would have been considered irrational, dysfunctional and highly taboo to alter it. Here in the 21st Century arrogant, godless progressives know better and pervert the design of marriage as God intended. Ultimately the Almighty will not allow rebels to thwart His designs.
To not fear the wrath of the Almighty is a dangerous position to be in. To be cast into hell forever what can be worse? NOTHING....
Ever since they caught Jim Bakker scroooooing around they’ve been on one big continuous victory lap regarding
Christians.
Most newspapers are suffering and I really do think they miss each subscription that is lost, especially when coupled with an email saying why you’re leaving. I did that years ago and got several emails back offering “deals” if I would resubscribe. I always responded by saying I saw no change in their editorial position and, until I did, I would not subscribed. The paper is struggling, as many other people are doing the same thing.
The Cincinnati Enquirer had Gannett ownership for years but managed to exhibit few signs of it. They had a rock-ribbed editorial department led by Peter Bronson who was a Cal Thomas type and drew all manner of lefty fire.
But they eventually succumbed to the Gannett disease and became another Touchy Feely Times. Mousy, plain, bespectacled J-school harridans were Peter Principled to the top jobs and the liberal rot had well and truly set in.
The paper is now unreadable but at least it’s quick - they’ve shrunk the print edition to the approximate width of toilet tissue.
Recently they announced an ‘initiative’ in which writers and photographers would be ‘entrepreneurs.’ And, of course, they claimed that they would focus on train and bike transportation despite the near-total absence of either in a river city with many hills and a very spread-out population. Cincinnati, especially the growth corridor along I-75 towards Dayton (Boehner district) is strictly a car town.
Translated, it was another downsizing due to a readership fleeing from a liberal political agenda on every page. W-2 employees were being forced to reapply for their jobs or unilaterally being turned into independent contractors.
If nobody bought hamburgers from McDonald’s, McDonald’s would quickly endeavor to find out why, starting with the product itself. Newspaper types seem incapable of such self-awareness. They prefer to read from the Little Red Book of American socialism: do the same thing over and over no matter how disastrous the consequences.
I agree totally. I moved here (to Cincinnati) about two years ago, but I was referring to the Indianapolis Star. Still, it appears that newspapers think everyone is extremely liberal and they write accordingly. Problem is, the assumption is false. Further, the MSM simply is not doing its job of investigating stories. They interview someone like Obozo and throw him fluff-ball questions. There are no reporters with the stones to ask a hard question. For example, how hard would it be to ask: “In the history of this Republic, why are you the first President to sequester virtually every record from your past?” In all this time, no one has ever asked that question. Why? Is it because they lack the courage to ask it, or are they afraid of the answer? I really wonder...
Not shocking just MSM exposing itself happens every day the reeducation brain washing system in action.
7/8 of an iceberg doesn’t show.
Even Ed Henry and the Fox News types are taken (including families) on ski trips and the like by the White House. Hamilton, Jefferson et al would only shake their heads.
The WH press corps is an anachronism. It was born of necessity when presidents traveled by train and reporters filed stories by telegraph. It was carried over to the jet plane era although the reporters sometimes travel on a charter plane rather than Air Force One.
But an in-house reporter is a compromised reporter. They will not cross the line that might get their credential revoked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.