I never want to hear the term “gay rights” ever again

I have never, ever liked that term.

The term itself is plural, n’est pas?? But when we ask our gay friends about it, it all comes down to ONE right: the right to marry. So, technically, it’s a singular item clothed in a plural voice. And that irked me no end.

Until this past week, when the same SCOTUS which had declared not too long ago that same sex marriage (SSM for short) was an issue for the states (Yes, Justice Elena Kagan said that), decided that SSM was protected under the 14th Amendment. States rights be damned, full speed ahead! We now have SSM legal in all 50 states.

Or 59, if you’re Teh Prez*.

And…..now what? Will the LGBTQXYZ3.14159 peeps go all Kumbaya with the rest of us now that they have their last acquired right? Hardly. Let the Solicitor General’s own words sink in:

SCOTUS SG SSM decision

We were told the churches would be left alone. I don’t care where you The Reader opine in church taxation. My point is the same group of people who usually scream for the “separation of church and state” are now willing to get the same State involved in matters of the Church. And I am of the opinion that you can’t have it both ways.

You got everything on your list. You got that last, precious right and now you have no more rights to conquer. But no, you want gay privileges. And that isn’t going to win you any friends.

This whole thing about rights started out with good intentions. Laws changed to accommodate changing social mores and to provide those who felt the sting of inequality the safeguards necessary to make things equal and better. But those same good intentions are now being perverted into a very slick boulevard to Hades. You have a guy and his wife and girlfriend applying for a marriage license for all three to marry each other. You have pedophiles arguing that their desire for kids is just as natural as heterosexuality and homosexuality. And pretty soon, you will have people marrying dolphins here, too.

I’m starting to think the states should get out of the marriage business altogether. I have been unfriended on social media by liberals for merely posting the above graphic and daring to ask if this was the intent all along. Usually I am calm and nice on social media (which is why I tend to vent here), but this crap is about to seriously damage my calm. Gay or straight, one shouldn’t be condemned for personal views. So it is with every bit of sweetness that I say:

You have your right. Now STFU, live your life in peace, and leave me to live mine as well.

*Teh Prez said he had been to 57 states and had two more to go 😉

LC Aggie Sith

8 Comments

  1. Well, they’ve managed to stir things up. I don’t think they’ll like the smell.

  2. As far as the sippery slope goes…. What surprised me in the marriage cases is how poorly the state attorneys general dealt with the quesiton of why the states had marriage laws to begin with.

    Here’s why: To defend their bans on gay marriage, the states had to show how their marriage definitions were related to the purpose of their marriage laws. In other words, “Banning gay marriage is rationally realted to the purpose of our marriage laws, which is to [X].”

    The courts would have given deference to that rationale, had they verbalized something. The states mumbled about tradition and about children, but nothing stuck. The kid argument didn’t work because parentage and marriage laws have no overlap in most states (!).

    So now we’re in a situation where, yeah, other people can come along and challenge the marriage laws, knowing that the states don’t know why they have them. Oh, and now marriage has been declared a fundamental right, so it’s subject to a higher standard than before.

    Good times.

  3. The supreme court got this spectacularly wrong (along with a bunch of state courts that caved in to loud minority social pressure). Gay people already had equal protection under the law. Gay people already had the right to marry, as long as they kept on the legal side of the laws in their states. In Missouri, a man cannot marry another man regardless of his sexual preference. A gay man can, however, marry a woman. Just like a non-gay man. That’s the argument the states should have made.

    Now if the (federal) government treats people differently based on marital status, that’s another conversation for another time.

  4. *meh* I’d as soon not ever see or hear “gay” misused to mean “homo-(or other)sexual” again. But at least I can laugh at the angry, neurotic, hyper-sensitive “homo-(or other)sexual” who refer to themselves that way for so uproariously misusing it. From someone (RIP) who knew how to use the word correctly: http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030729.shtml

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *