DOMA ruling reveals ultimate goal of “gay rights” activists

Rainbow hat

The following post is a transcript of a 4-minute weekly radio commentary aired on several Utah radio stations.

Recent Supreme Court decisions regarding homosexual rights have confirmed the validity of the old adage that, “The devil always oversteps his bounds.” In the Defense of Marriage case, Justice Anthony Kennedy reminded every Utahn leery of “gay rights” why we’re right to be suspicious. The goal isn’t equality or fairness under the law. The goal is public acceptance of homosexuality.

Justice Kennedy told Americans that all attempts to defend traditional marriage are acts of animus, malice and irrationality. He left no room for exceptions. This is a great lesson for our Utah Legislature to remember when it convenes for the 2014 legislative session and is asked to, once again, support a statewide nondiscrimination law.

Like Justice Kennedy’s opinion, the basis for nondiscrimination laws is one person’s perception that another person is motivated by hatred and bigotry. The proposed Utah law is based on what one person thinks about another person’s thoughts. It assumes any unwitting landlord or employer is guilty until proven innocent if some homosexual doesn’t get his way. It is an unjust and immoral legal construction.

In a single opinion, Justice Kennedy adopted this same irrational legal application – he based law on his ability to read the minds of others. Americans who disagree with him are, in the precise words of his dissenting colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, “enemies of the human race.” Whether it is Justice Kennedy opining on DOMA or Utah State Senator Steve Urquhart opining in favor of his statewide nondiscrimination proposal, the effect is the same: Anyone who disagrees with them is an irrational bigot.

This same deceitful political paradigm has its rhetorical corollaries such as when homosexual activists compare their cause to traditional civil rights. They view the motives of opponents to homosexual rights as if they were 18th century southern plantation owners – as if you and I defend the institution of slavery when we support traditional marriage. They say the fight for homosexual rights is the same as fighting for black civil rights and we, their opponents, are bigots the same as southern plantation owners. In other words, they’re claiming in their absurdity that our defense of traditional marriage is the same as racists defending slavery.

For several decades, the strategy of homosexual activists has been to smear the ideals of people who think differently than them. Why? Why not simply make their case? Why so savagely impugn the motives of those with whom they disagree? They have claimed that all they want is equality. They yearn for fairness under the law, they say. But what it all comes down to is that the politicized pathology of homosexuality wants, yearns, needs and craves unanimous acceptance for what they do. The politics of homosexuality is not about civil rights. It’s about the pathological need for acceptance – and this is why Justice Kennedy says what he does about the animus he can only sense in others; and this is why Urquhart’s nondiscrimination bill rests on making laws about what people think.

The cause of “gay rights” isn’t about fairness or equality. It’s about the quest for total and unequivocal acceptance of homosexuality. And this is why so many of us fight to protect not only the legal definition of marriage, but now we fight just as fiercely for religious freedom and individual conscience. Justice Kennedy has now seen to that. The façade has been lifted now that the devil has overstepped his bounds.

For Sutherland Institute, I’m Paul Mero. Thanks for listening.

Related posts:

This entry was posted in Family, Gay Rights, Law. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to DOMA ruling reveals ultimate goal of “gay rights” activists

  1. Just Wondering says:

    If a gay landlord won’t rent to a straight couple based on their sexual orientation, what recourse is there for the straight couple? What special protections do they get?
    When a LBGT employer dismisses a straight worker because he or she doesn’t like the workers sexual orientation, what recourse is there for the worker?

    How many special protection laws need to be in place to cover what everyone thinks the other person is thinking. Passing laws based on what someone is perceived to have thought and then acted base on on the perceived thought, against someone who only thinks they acted a certain way based on their sexual orientation. How many laws based on perceived thought are we to inact?

  2. Richard Warnick says:

    Using the term “gay rights” instead of “equal rights” distorts the issue. The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause clearly says that a state cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Also, what some call “religious freedom” others consider to be religious oppression.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>