Posted on 07/29/2003 11:03:15 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
A new USA Today /CNN /Gallup Survey suggests there is a backlash of public opinion against homosexuality after the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Texas' sodomy law.
It's not surprising.
The decision was widely seen as a judicial push for the agenda of homosexual political activists eager to see their lifestyle not only accepted nationwide but promoted by government and major cultural institutions.
Defenders of the Texas law had contended the ultimate goal of the case was not to end sodomy laws, but to advance the "ambitious agenda" of homosexual activists. Justice Antonin Scalia, in a scathing dissent, agreed.
"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," he wrote.
The public seems to agree as well.
Asked whether same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal, 48 percent in the new survey said yes, while 46 percent said no.
Prior to the ruling in early May, the ratio peaked at 60 percent in favor, 35 percent opposed. In other words, the ruling may have had just the opposite of its intended effect.
According to the numbers, 49 percent of respondents said homosexuality should not be considered "an acceptable alternative lifestyle," while 46 percent said it should. This marks the first time since 1997 that more people were opposed.
Opposition to civil unions has also risen, according to the poll, even amid recent developments promoting them. WorldNetDaily reported the New York Times recently decided to publish notices of same-sex ceremonies along with its wedding announcements, and the September-October issue of Conde Nast's Bride's magazine currently on newsstands features an article on homosexual weddings.
Fifty-seven percent polled said they opposed civil unions – the most opposition since the question was first asked in 2000 – while 40 percent voiced support.
Recently the Canadian courts decided to recognize homosexual marriages. The California state Assembly's passage of a historic bill that would award virtually all the rights of marriage to homosexual "domestic partners."
Is public opinion still important when the courts are taking the matter out of the hands of the people? You bet it is. In fact, the majority opinion in the historic Supreme Court decision in the Texas case even cited growing public acceptance of homosexuality as a basis of its ruling.
Likewise, on my new radio show this week, I interviewed a spokeswoman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation who said morality is simply a matter for the public to decide through politics.
Asked why polygamists are still getting a tough battle in the courts, she said it is simply because there are not enough polygamists and they are not sufficiently organized to make their case.
She's right. And just as Scalia predicted in his dissent, you can bank on polygamists organizing around the same legal language employed by the homosexual activists. You can bank on incest practitioners organizing along these lines. You can bank on those who want to see reductions in the age of consent organizing along these lines. You can even bank on those who are into bestiality organizing along these lines.
It's coming. That's the future. Just watch the news.
That's how America decides what is right and wrong today – based on public-opinion polls and the clout of narrow, special-interest groups.
The truth is, there is little difference in my eyes between polygamy and homosexuality – except perhaps that there are far more biblical injunctions against homosexuality and in far stronger terms and without any exceptions.
It was once true in America that our laws were based on such things as the Ten Commandments and biblical law. That is no longer the case. Today, it is simply based on which way the wind is blowing. And the wind is to the backs of the homosexual /transsexual /cross-gendered lobby.
Why? Are there no eternal truths anymore? Is there no right and wrong? Is it all just a question of pop-culture whim?
Today, homosexuals not only are a protected class of people based on their sexual behavior, they are a celebrated group of people on television, in movies, in books and in the media. They are portrayed as heroes, quite literally. And what places them in that category is what they do in their bedrooms – and sometimes in public restrooms.
Backlash?
My guess is we ain't seen nothing yet.
What? You never heard of Griswald v. Connecticut?
Grow up,
Lie. Homosexuals and their assistants and supporters are doing everything they can to change peoples' attitudes towards homosexual behavior and so-called "identity" and you know it.
This is about being treated differently under the law. The Texas law let unmarried heterosexuals commit sodomy without legal sanction. It only sought out homosexuals as being criminal.
Nonsense. Now all sodomy laws are "unconstitutional". Other states had sodomy laws that applied equally and they are struck down too.
Finally, most gays have dealt with "unpopularity" all their lives.
There's no constitutional right to having people like you.
You have no idea the psychological damage that can happen to young gay people when they hear their parents and family members denigrate and dehumanize gays. Nothing like telling a young person he/she is unworthy of your love.
You don't know what I know. I have a close and dear relative who has succombed to the lure of same sex life and I love this person dearly. I don't reject this person. But I don't accept what this person does.
Doesn't make em straight but it does make em determined to try to prevent it for the next generation.
If someone wants to change they can and thousands can attest to this truth.
And your level of presumption about the other side of the issue makes me wonder if you'd have any qualms with cannibalism if you had been raised in a zeitgeist that celebrated cannibals.
He can't hep it... he's got 'fundies' in his 'undies'.
You don't say?!?!?!
I guess by your standard, I can't be critical of Nazis because I don't have any Nazi friends.
Finally, most gays have dealt with "unpopularity" all their lives. You have no idea the psychological damage that can happen to young gay people when they hear their parents and family members denigrate and dehumanize gays. Nothing like telling a young person he/she is unworthy of your love. Doesn't make em straight but it does make em determined to try to prevent it for the next generation.
One could say the same thing about pedophiles.
If you'll look closely, the "fundies" have asked that we leave the law and culture alone. The homosexual activists have created and proposed numerous laws "minding everyone elses business."
The "fundies" aren't the enemy. The gays are.
Shalom.
This is why children should be seen and not heard...no one besides you parents and teachers wants to be bothered with the tedious job of imparting an education to you. If you don't know the connection, then you know no more about the case than a redneck knows about China.
Educate yourself.
Their idea of freedom is to be able to engage in any form of sexual adventurism as often (and as varied) as their mind's (and glands) desire. And to be able to prevent, by force of law, anyone from thinking that there might be something wrong with their actions.
It is not a "smear tactic." It is a reasonable question which you have no reasonable answer for...hence your aggressive attempt to marginalize me with inept insinuation.
On what objective standard do you approve of homosexuality, but disapprove of pedophilia? Consent of adults is a dodge, because the relevant issue is WHY not WHAT.
But answer me this: If, in fact, homosexuality were actually a perversion, what evidence would you accept to prove it?
Don't worry -- I'm sure only leather bullets will be used.
Ooooo! Redefining the elements of an analogy: how novel.
Wow. That was hard to get when I was in school.
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.