Pissed off about winning
Posted by aogWednesday, 27 March 2013 at 11:48 TrackBack Ping URL

Yeah, nothing makes liberals happy because it’s the fight that is the thing. I mixed it up a bit on Facebook on one of those sappy icon thinking people. What got to me was the endless repetition of the “live and let live” propaganda about same sex marriage. Anyone with a clue realizes that it’s basically a blatant lie, no one will be left alone if the SCOTUS rules there is a Constitutional right to same sex marriage. However, if you point this out, you get called names and are shunned for “bashing”. Apparently this is also seen as a religious based argument for some reason, although no basis for that was offered. My favorite bit, though was to told that “it’s the law, so suck it up and get over it” with regard to previous government interventions in society. I pointed out that the law makes same sex marriage illegal, so should its proponents also “suck it up and get over it”. This was not well received.

I was left with a strong sense of DOOM that the zeitgeist has shifted to not just tolerating but actively supporting a totalitarian state, as long as there’s a vote on it. That seems to be the meaning of “democracy” these days. Now that the MAL thinks it has won, the underlying intolerance and hate are no longer concealed. It is because of that that even victory is bitter ashes to the MAL.

P.S. Let’s add the Jesus Stomp Incident to the pile, as it’s another classic example of double standards.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Bret Wednesday, 27 March 2013 at 15:34

Anyone with a clue realizes that it’s basically a blatant lie, no one will be left alone…

I AM clueless, but how will we not be left alone?

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 27 March 2013 at 16:15

The same way as the contraceptive mandate — among other things, churches will be forced to perform same sex marriages, regardless of their beliefs. Hate crimes and speech restrictions will soon follow, along with EEOC and the hordes of the regulatory state. When I pointed this out, there was much anger but they all agreed that, yes, the government should do that.

One might well argue that yes, that’s a good thing, but to claim it is “live and let live” is a lie.

P.S. I saw several links with good details go by today, but now I can’t find. I’ll keep an eye out and link some here. Here’s one with some examples.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 27 March 2013 at 16:59

Thinking some more, it occurs to me this is similar to the problem with the welfare state vs. immigration — if you have a minarchial state that issues like this are smaller, because the impact is so much less. With a regulatory state where every transaction is overseen for political correctness then any change in legal status is a big deal that impacts basically everyone. You can’t use “live and let live” as a rational basis in the regulatory state the tranzis have created.

Bret Wednesday, 27 March 2013 at 17:20

…churches will be forced to perform same sex marriages,…

That seems unlikely to me. Islam is big enough in the United States and there’s no way they’d put up with that and the result would be massive violence.

If I was running a church, I would stop performing “marriages” altogether. I would perform “God Unions” (or something like that, but definitely with the word God in it) and I would not require that those getting the God Unions have a marriage license (which is okay as long as they are not actually getting “married”). That would then separate the religious part of marriage from the political part.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 27 March 2013 at 20:54


We’ll see. I expect law suits within a year on that. Although the fate of the contraceptive mandate will be illustrative. But let me note that the people who plied the “live and let live” were also the same people who thought that not only would this happen, but it was to be encouraged.

The point about not performing marriages is interesting — someone else noted specifically that the most likely result of all of this is not to get the government out of marriage (as libertarians say) but to religion out of marriage and turn it entirely over to the government. Perhaps it’s a character defect but to see rampant government consuming and reconstituting basic human activities like that is very distressful. What is more totalitarian than that? It’s hard to see a church which is de facto forced out of performing marriages as being left alone.

Post a comment