How Obergefell Really Happened
by AUSTIN RUSE
Without a doubt Obergefell was crammed down our throats, as were all the lower court decisions that overturned 34 state laws and constitutional changes voted upon by citizens.
But, it is hard to see that Obergefell would have ever happened if the ground had not been prepared, if those five Supreme Court justices could not at least delude themselves into thinking that a great societal sea change had occurred.
Homosexuals like to give themselves credit for changing America’s mind, that the ground for Obergefell was prepared by their personal interaction with everyday Americans, that they are in fact everywhere and just like us.
They argue that we changed our minds because of our own personal experiences with all the homosexuals we know personally; those we are friends with; our own sons, daughters, cousins, dads, and uncles who are happily and charmingly and certainly non-threateningly homosexual.
While it is plausible that Americans changed their minds about homosexuals, we certainly did not change our minds about their agenda, that is, marriage, adoption, and the revocation of religious freedom.
But all this mind-changing did not occur because of our personal interaction with individual homosexuals. As I have shown in previous columns, there just aren’t enough of them to have done that. Most people simply do not have homosexual relatives, co-workers, or friends. Even if we wanted to befriend one, there are so few we would end up fighting over them. “That one is mine.” “No, he’s mine.” “No, I called it, mine.”
According to the most reliable data from the Center for Disease Control, there are a few million—3.7 million to be exact—adult homosexuals in the United States. Each of these 3.7 million would have to be out and proud and, more than that, friends with an average of 63 other adults who are not same-sex attracted. Gays may be social but they aren’t that social.
So, how did all this happen? How did America supposedly become so cozy with the gays? Television, followed by news coverage, relentless, never ending news coverage of their every utterance and hangnail.
Go to Wikipedia and explore gay characters on television. Homosexuals love to keep track of such things and the homosexual community of editors at Wikipedia is vast and formidable. There are lists for news and information shows featuring LGBTs, reality shows with them, soap operas with gay characters, situation comedies, made-for-TV films, animated gays, television episodes with LGBT themes, pro-Stonewall TV, 1970s TV, 1980s TV, and so on and on and gayly on.
These voluminous lists demonstrate that for such a teeny tiny sliver of the population, homosexuals have for decades inundated us with themselves and their “issues.”
The Wiki article on homosexuals on TV dramas runs to a whopping 62 pages.
Did you know there is a show on MTV called The Shannara Chronicles and that Eretria is bisexual? On CW’s Legends of Tomorrow Sarah Lance/White Canary is bisexual. On NBC’s Shades of Blue, Ray Liotta plays Wozniak—“the corrupt commander of the 64th Precinct” and he is homosexual. Ray Liotta plays gay? According to Wiki, Liotta’s character is not the only gay character on that show. So is a character named Donnie Pomp. Blake Moran on CBS’s Madam Secretary is one. And in a veritable smorgasbord of gay, ABC’s How to Get Away with Murder has five: Conor, Oliver, Aiden, Annalise, and Eve.
Are you getting the picture? Not yet?
Ok, let’s look at comedies.
Without a doubt Obergefell was crammed down our throats, as were all the lower court decisions that overturned 34 state laws and constitutional changes voted upon by citizens.
But, it is hard to see that Obergefell would have ever happened if the ground had not been prepared, if those five Supreme Court justices could not at least delude themselves into thinking that a great societal sea change had occurred.
Homosexuals like to give themselves credit for changing America’s mind, that the ground for Obergefell was prepared by their personal interaction with everyday Americans, that they are in fact everywhere and just like us.
They argue that we changed our minds because of our own personal experiences with all the homosexuals we know personally; those we are friends with; our own sons, daughters, cousins, dads, and uncles who are happily and charmingly and certainly non-threateningly homosexual.
While it is plausible that Americans changed their minds about homosexuals, we certainly did not change our minds about their agenda, that is, marriage, adoption, and the revocation of religious freedom.
But all this mind-changing did not occur because of our personal interaction with individual homosexuals. As I have shown in previous columns, there just aren’t enough of them to have done that. Most people simply do not have homosexual relatives, co-workers, or friends. Even if we wanted to befriend one, there are so few we would end up fighting over them. “That one is mine.” “No, he’s mine.” “No, I called it, mine.”
According to the most reliable data from the Center for Disease Control, there are a few million—3.7 million to be exact—adult homosexuals in the United States. Each of these 3.7 million would have to be out and proud and, more than that, friends with an average of 63 other adults who are not same-sex attracted. Gays may be social but they aren’t that social.
So, how did all this happen? How did America supposedly become so cozy with the gays? Television, followed by news coverage, relentless, never ending news coverage of their every utterance and hangnail.
Go to Wikipedia and explore gay characters on television. Homosexuals love to keep track of such things and the homosexual community of editors at Wikipedia is vast and formidable. There are lists for news and information shows featuring LGBTs, reality shows with them, soap operas with gay characters, situation comedies, made-for-TV films, animated gays, television episodes with LGBT themes, pro-Stonewall TV, 1970s TV, 1980s TV, and so on and on and gayly on.
These voluminous lists demonstrate that for such a teeny tiny sliver of the population, homosexuals have for decades inundated us with themselves and their “issues.”
The Wiki article on homosexuals on TV dramas runs to a whopping 62 pages.
Did you know there is a show on MTV called The Shannara Chronicles and that Eretria is bisexual? On CW’s Legends of Tomorrow Sarah Lance/White Canary is bisexual. On NBC’s Shades of Blue, Ray Liotta plays Wozniak—“the corrupt commander of the 64th Precinct” and he is homosexual. Ray Liotta plays gay? According to Wiki, Liotta’s character is not the only gay character on that show. So is a character named Donnie Pomp. Blake Moran on CBS’s Madam Secretary is one. And in a veritable smorgasbord of gay, ABC’s How to Get Away with Murder has five: Conor, Oliver, Aiden, Annalise, and Eve.
Are you getting the picture? Not yet?
Ok, let’s look at comedies.
................
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both theDue Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2][3]
In November 2014, following a lengthy series of appeals court rulings from the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that state-level bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit ruled that it was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found them constitutional, creating a split between circuits and leading to an almost inevitable Supreme Court review.
Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.[4] This legalizedsame-sex marriage throughout the United States, and its possessions and territories. The Court examined the nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights while the democratic process plays out, and the evolving understanding of discrimination and inequality that has developed greatly since Baker.
........
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario