I won’t go into all the details of the rulings today. I believe they are a nod to federalism; overturning DOMA but sending Prop 8 back to the state (unfortunately for the voters of California, the 9th Circuit Court overturned their will) but there are some questions.
Allahpundit at Hot Air asks a good one here.
According to my husband, there is a lot of doom and gloom in the Catholic/Christian blogosphere and concern (not entirely unjustified) about what this means for religious liberty in the United States.
This fight is not over. The ruling did not explicitly create a right to gay marriage and it did not overturn laws prohibiting gay marriage in states where such laws are on the books (like Wisconsin). If you look at the demographics of Prop 8 you’ll note that it got something like 52% of the vote in California and Obama carried that state with 61% of the vote. These are not, contrary to what liberals tell you, votes passed by bigoted blue haired lily white octogenarians carrying Bibles and Rosary beads. People who voted Democratic (and Obama won Wisconsin, too) in past elections voted for the traditional definition of marriage.
I do not believe it’s a lost cause.
But the first thing that should be done now is that Republicans in state legislatures across the country should pass clear and concise laws protecting freedom of speech, religious conscience and the First Amendment. They should make it explicitly clear that no church, group, or individual will be forced to acknowledge or otherwise partake in a gay marriage — including florists, bakers, photographers, hall owners, etc.
Let’s send a very clear message: if you’ve the right to marry, we’ve the right to politely decline being forced to approve your union in any way, shape or form. It’s called equal protection under the First Amendment.
But the article doesn’t mention the problem until about two-thirds of the way down and, even then, only skirts the issue.
The Girl Scouts have, like the Boy Scouts are doing now, shunned the traditional roots and values on which they were founded in favor of whatever politically correct cause-du-jour the left happens to be harping about on any given day. The Girl Scouts have embraced abortion, and have a decidedly feminist bent that I don’t remember from my days wearing the sash (at an event, speaker Marlo Thomas said she opposed marriage because she couldn’t “mate in captivity”).
Just like the Boy Scouts recent decision to allow openly gay scouts (but not openly gay leaders) has caused many to reconsider their membership, the same thing happened to the Girl Scouts to their fiscal detriment. At the end of the day and despite Obama’s 2012 victory, we are still a center-right nation.
The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts — places where kids should be able to learn skills that come with camping and the social interaction of being with a diverse sampling of their peers — have been politicized. This is because the left never, ever passes up an opportunity to indoctrinate people (especially young people) to their political ideologies.
But, the good news (at least for parents and kids) is that membership to the Boy and Girl Scouts is voluntary. And when you wave the proverbial middle finger at parents who don’t want their kids politicized or exposed to abortion or gay issues, you can’t pretend to be surprised when those parents take their kids (and their money) elsewhere.
There is a fortune to be made for the enterprising person(s) who start organizations free of this political nonsense. But — more than that — there is an opportunity to fight back against the liberal takeover of organizations. They specifically take positions in organizations like the Scouts or political groups or even community groups and volunteer organizations with the purpose of passing and enforcing their agenda.
If they have no one they can force to comply with said agenda, and no one to pass it along to, they will lose their footholds.
Or, more accurately, the question Jim Carrey won’t answer.
Will he return all the money he made from films with violence, including his salary from ‘Kick-Ass 2’?
I don’t believe movie violence causes mass shootings any more than I believe cooking shows make people over-eaters or “Antiques Roadshow” makes people hoarders. Violence in movies is, unless a documentary, fictional and if we’ve lost our ability as a culture to discern between real violence and fictional violence, then our problems are much, much deeper than Jim Carrey’s latest flick.
But, of course, blaming real-life violence on fictional movies reflects rather sadly on our culture’s shunning of personal responsibility and the blaming of “the other” for the bad choices one makes in one’s life.
Carrey is a staunch gun-control advocate, and a rather insulting one. After the Sandy Hook School shooting in December, he tweeted many nasty things (that made no logical sense) about Second Amendment supporters (of which I’m one). He’s got a right to be against guns but — especially without a consistent ethic — we have a right to challenge his views (which are in the minority, I believe) and to question his motives.