But the forcible indoctrination of small children will continue indefinitely, thanks to the rat teachers' union, as well as the "human rights commission" persecutions of dissenting Christians. The damage is grave. No use denying it.
Posted on 10/22/2014 12:38:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
American attitudes to gay marriage have been turned on their head in the space of a single generation.
After a US Supreme Court decision this month, 30 of America’s 50 states will have gay marriage laws, which is testament to the sudden shift in attitudes towards same-sex unions in the US.
Two decades ago barely a quarter of Americans believed members of the LGBT community should enjoy equal marriage rights; now nearly two-thirds accept gay marriage.
This quantum leap cannot be explained by what sociologists call generational shift – that is older, conservative folk dying off and younger, more liberal people taking their places. Something more radical and unforeseen took place that precipitated a change in opinion that leapt across the generations.
So how did it happen?
Don’t ask, don’t tell … 1993
The title of Bill Clinton’s legislation to allow gay people to serve in the US military told its own story: the gay and lesbian community could be tolerated, but only if it kept itself to itself.
“Don’t ask don’t tell” sounds ugly now, but at the time it was a hard-fought compromise with the generals who warned that gay soldiers would cause dangerous confusion on the front lines.
That bill showed how far attitudes still had to travel. The Democrats had a “no discrimination on basis of sexual orientation” clause in their policy platform since 1980, but in practice that was far more aspiration than actuality....
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
What sudden shift. The stinking liberal courts have overturned several homo abomination marriage laws. I ain’t for it. My Bible says it is an ABOMINATION!!! That covers it.
Oh yes, and always claim victory even when you lose at the ballot box. That way the media and tyrannical judges can claim “the public has changed its mind” based on push polling while ignoring the only legal polling (ballot) that counts.
Post 33 is very interesting.
Well they may want even more, they will want all those who persecuted them to be punished severely and then they might be satisfied. And of course all negative speech about homosexuals to be banned from public and private conversations, they are subpoenaing pastors sermons right?
I wonder how many families have a homo who came out to them and threatened them with the ultimatum: “accept me and my perversion, or else!”
That’s how it happened with my in-laws. Their son came home from college and told his parents that the guy he’d claimed for the longest time was his “friend” was really his “partner.” His parents, previously pretty solid conservatives, folded like deck chairs on the issue.
So while these pervs are less than 2% of the population, they’re flipping their family members and friends into accepting this sin. People are errantly buying into the myth that you have to accept the sin.
You could not be more correct... and insightful.
+1
That was pre-obamacare.
And even then, the USSC was more than ready and willing to shit on the Constitution for the sake of political expedience — Schenck v. United States [1919]:
We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. […] When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.So, according to this ruling, the Congress has a duty/right which trumps
Congress shall make no law respecting […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
I'm in the minority when I assert that the first amendment, even via the 14th's incorporation, should not bind the states as it specifically mentions and binds Congress. I'm of the opinion that to assert otherwise is to assert that there is some magic which suddenly makes the words not mean what the words say.
A combination of no-fault divorce an a growing willingness by the public to use it also played a role as well.
They only wanted civil unions for health benefits.
...many homosexuals are quite wealthy...filthy rich, if you like...and stand to leave sizeable estates...
...civil union partners cannot inherit estates tax free, but spouses can...that is why they want marriage...
A whole lot of people don’t understand what real compassion is: a tightrope walk.
It would have been way easier to lobby for a change in the tax law. Way easier.
This has always been about extorting affirmation.
Opposition to queer “marriage” among the general population is as strong as it ever was
...just curious...have you checked younger American’s views on the subject...?
...I’d wager you’d be quite surprised...
It would have been way easier to lobby for a change in the tax law. Way easier.
...you’re joking, right...? I mean, the entire thrust of the same sex marriage debate centers around the ease and rapidity of its affirmation, all attainable through judicial fiat, and ramped up to warp speed...
...suing for the courts to recognize a legal marriage works a lot quicker than lobbying the taxing authority for a reduction in its revenue collection, at least in our current libertine age...tax collectors haven’t been reviled for at least 2000 years and more for nothing, after all...
Really?
Isn't most of society run that way?
Looks like the Telegraph is going the way of the Economist.
Leftists can't win at the ballot box, so they have to use the black robes.
Love gay marriage...? What crappola!
I have friends to whom something similar happened. They are still very solid conservatives, but heartsick ones. They had no choice but to accept their child’s circumstances or lose all contact with that child. They do not condone the child’s choice and have said so. But they love their offspring. They pray constantly for them to see their error. One parent believes it is *a phase*.
My only personal experience that comes close to this is marrying outside my birth religion 50 years ago. My parents threatened me with being disowned. I had to choose and I chose my husband. My parents relented. Had they not, all it would have accomplished would have been one more family dysfunction among many.
Sanctions work both ways. Familial splits over these sorts of lifestyle choices serve the enemy just as well as the original error.
I have no answers, but what do you expect the parents to do? Break off all contact with their child forever while the child continues on alone in their error? I don’t think there are any easy answers when one is caught in the midst of this sort of situation. And there are no answers at all from outside the situation. It then becomes a case of “Easy for you to say.”
But the forcible indoctrination of small children will continue indefinitely, thanks to the rat teachers' union, as well as the "human rights commission" persecutions of dissenting Christians. The damage is grave. No use denying it.
Excellent post, and so relevant. Thank you!
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.