Yesterday’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges represents the culmination of a perfectly executed public relations campaign.
In a purely pragmatic sense, it’s difficult not to be impressed by what this activist-driven effort accomplished—I mean in real terms, not the unserious victory slogans of the campaign itself.
In no particular order, it:
1. Successfully and fundamentally transformed the definition of “marriage,” and did so in a way that portrayed efforts to preserve traditional marriage as the novelty, rather than the millennia-old status quo.
2. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public that there is only one side in this debate, despite the fact that the side claiming the monopoly had only existed in any meaningful form for perhaps 20 years.
3. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public that race and sexual orientation are directly analogous.
4. Successfully convinced a critical mass of the public (and jurists) that there is no possible argument against gay marriage—to the point where federal judges found that not permitting same-sex marriage is definitionally irrational, and had prominent left-leaning outlets calling yesterday’s dissents simply “crazy.”
5. Successfully branded opponents as simple “bigots” for daring to hold a different view on a live political issue, going so far as to take punitive action against those who did not adopt the “correct” viewpoint.
6. Successfully portrayed the battle as, literally, love versus hate.
7. Successfully accomplished all of the above in about a decade.
My God, the magnitude of it is staggering.
Category Archives: Hypocrisy
President Barack Obama urged supporters of same-sex marriage Friday to “help” people to overcome their religious convictions, so they are no longer held back from a progressive American view of equality.
“I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue,” he said in a speech following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling to Constitutionally recognize same-sex marriage. He initially espoused respect for those who disagree with the ruling.
“Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs,” he said. “All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact. Recognize different viewpoints. Revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.”
“But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple often painfully real change is possible,” he continued, abruptly switching gears, clearly implying that those who disagree must come around to the more righteous, more American, and more equal view of marriage.
“Shifts in hearts and minds is possible,” he said. “And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them. Because for all our differences, we are one people — stronger together than we could ever be alone.”
“That’s always been our story. We are big and vast, and diverse. A nation of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, with different experiences and stories, but bound by our shared ideal that no matter who you are, or what you look like, how you started off, or how and who you love — America’s a place where you can write your own destiny.”
Perhaps reeducation camps?
First, many compare man-woman marriage laws to bans on interracial marriage, but whereas anti-miscegenation laws separated the races, marriage unites the genders. Laws against interracial marriages are historical anomalies, but the requirement of a man and woman is the universal characteristic of marriage across time and culture. Far from discrimination, the union of man and woman is the very definition of what marriage is.
Second, same-sex marriage advocates argue that the children of same-sex couples are disadvantaged if those couples cannot marry, yet the same advocates argue there’s no difference in child outcomes for same-sex couples. Both cannot simultaneously be true. Are the children of same-sex couples disadvantaged or are there no differences? Katy Faust, who was raised by her mother and lesbian partner, believes there are differences, but not because her mother could not legally marry her partner. Once a supporter of same-sex marriage, now that she’s a parent herself, she feels differently: “I see how important the role of [my children’s] father is and how irreplaceable I am as their mother. We play complementary roles in their lives, and neither of us is disposable. In fact, we are both critical. It’s almost as if Mother Nature got this whole reproduction thing exactly right.”
Third, to prove a constitutional deprivation, same-sex couples argue that the right to marry a member of the opposite sex is impossible and meaningless, but this ignores the tens of thousands of LGBT people in traditional marriages. Recent studies show that 51 percent of bisexual adults with children and 18 percent of gays and lesbians with children choose man-woman marriages. Same-sex marriage advocates stigmatize such relationships as unnatural and dangerous, but powerful examples are proving otherwise.
The College Fix gets results: After we broke the story of the University of California’s long list of “microaggression” phrases that professors should avoid, the state’s biggest paper has slammed the university system for its “over-the-top, politically correct list of unacceptable topics and questions.”
The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times says that some of the phrases are “not necessarily aggressive at all”:
If a professor asks a Latino, Asian American or Native American student to “speak up more” in class, is the professor really saying that they must “assimilate to the dominant culture”? If a university official says, “I believe the most qualified candidate should get the job,” does that really mean “people of color are given unfair benefits?”
Worse yet, the material posted on the UC website discourages faculty members from expressing legitimate political opinions. Surely a professor ought to be able to say that America is a melting pot, or that affirmative action is a bad policy because it is inherently racist. Since when are universities afraid of clashing or provocative beliefs?
Regardless of whether UC is actually punishing faculty, “the university is clearly discouraging certain kinds of statements, and faculty will take notice — especially those members without tenure,” the editorial says.
The parties in newly graduated student Paul Nungesser’s Title IX lawsuit against Columbia University are having a pretrial conference next week.
They’ll be arguing before a federal judge whether Columbia created a “hostile educational environment” by enabling “Mattress Girl” Emma Sulkowicz to ruin Nungesser’s life by publicly identifying him as a rapist (despite Columbia’s exoneration of him) and harassing him via her “Carry That Weight” project.
In a joint letter ahead of the pretrial conference, not only do the parties disclose that they are “prepared to explore” a settlement ahead of trial, but also drop an interesting tidbit about new evidence Nungesser plans to introduce:
[F]rom May 11, 2015 to May 15, 2015, Defendant Columbia had on display Emma Sulkowicz’s pornographic prints at the Columbia University Visual Arts Program in the Leroy Neimann Gallery in the Dodge Building on Defendant Columbia’s campus. The pornographic prints were printed over as well as next to two New York Times articles previously published about Emma Sulkowicz’s false allegations against Plaintiff Nungesser. Due to the articles identifying Paul by his full name, to any reasonable viewer of the prints, these prints portrayed Paul engaged in sexual assault and in explicit pornographic images.
Nungesser also accuses Columbia of giving Sulkowicz a “special university privilege” to bring her mattress to their graduation, which further harassed him, and gave her honors “not based on grade point average” that show Columbia “rewarding, encouraging and celebrating” Sulkowicz’s harassment of Nungesser.
While the Supreme Court’s likely attempt to create yet another legal fiction in the steady expansion of its powers is particularly dramatic, we have seen a century-long attack on marriage, perhaps dateable to the early-20th-century embrace of artificial contraception, but certainly in its wake, between various modes of sterilizing efficiency, all the way to abortion, we have witnessed a total detachment of marriage from conjugal procreation.The redefinition of marriage has been underway for some time, as many have noted. But we often miss the political significance of redefining marriage. What has happened is that the conjugal union is no longer posited as being prior to the political union, as it was for Aristotle, and even more strongly in the later development of the Western tradition. We have been witnessing the steady erasure of pre-political limits.Marriage has been severed from nature as such, and it has certainly been severed from any notion that marriage is for the propagation of the next generation of a society. We may think of the cultural transformation happening organically, but everything from contraception to no-fault divorce to abortion has been enforced by the government — most often at the highest level of the judiciary.But we should ask ourselves: Who stands to benefit from these erosions of marriage? One reason why a state might enforce a legal redefinition of marriage is that the conjugal definition reminds us that there’s something natural on which the state depends.To put it bluntly, the reason why we have seen so much power behind redefining marriage is not because it serves 1.8 percent of the population. It is because it serves Leviathan — the Hobbesian vision of an absolutely sovereign state with ever-expansive control over every aspect of our lives. There are natural checks that can curb this tendency toward absolute power, but we aren’t talking about marriage as an important pre-political makeweight to secure a free republic.We urgently need to advance a debate about marriage and the limits of government. Our current judicial regime seeks not to recognize marriage but to redefine it on a political basis. In doing so, our government is claiming for itself a power that our Founders explicitly sought to limit. That’s the debate we are not having. And not having that debate will eventually mean a loss of freedom for everyone.
A progressive panic attack begins as the Obama era wanes. If it seems to you that the Left has, collectively, lost its damned mind as the curtain rises on the last act of the Obama administration, you are not imagining things. Barack Obama has been extraordinarily successful in his desire to — what was that phrase? — fundamentally transform the country, but the metamorphosis is nonetheless a good deal less than his congregation wanted and expected. We may have gone from being up to our knees in welfare-statism to being up to our hips in it, and from having a bushel of banana-republic corruption and incompetence to having a bushel and a peck of it, but the United States of America remains, to the Left’s dismay, plainly recognizable as herself beneath the muck.Ergo, madness and rage.We have seen an extraordinary outburst of genuine extremism — and genuine authoritarianism — in the past several months, and it will no doubt grow more intense as we approach the constitutional dethroning of the mock messiah to whom our progressive friends literally sang hymns of praise and swore oaths of allegiance. (“I pledge to be a servant to our president” — recall all that sieg heil creepiness.) There is an unmistakable stink of desperation about this, as though the Left intuits what the Right dares not hope: that the coming few months may in fact see progressivism’s cultural high-water mark for this generation.For the Left, it feels like time is running out. So it isn’t sufficient that same-sex marriages be legalized; bakers and florists must be locked in prison if they decline to participate in a gay couple’s ceremony. It isn’t sufficient that those wishing to undergo sex-change surgery be permitted to go their own way; the public must pay for it, and if Bruce Jenner is still “Bruce” to you, you must be driven from polite society. It isn’t enough that the Left dominate the media and pop culture; any attempt to compete with it must be criminalized in the name of “getting big money out of politics.” Not the New York Times’s money, or Hollywood’s money, or the CEO of Goldman Sachs’s money — just the wrong sort of people’s money. Every major Democratic presidential candidate and every Democratic senator is on record supporting the repeal of the First Amendment’s free-speech protections — i.e., carving the heart out of the Bill of Rights — to clear the way for putting all public debate under political discipline.Like it or not, you will be shackled to hope and change.What’s going to happen between now and November 8 of next year will be a political campaign on one side of the aisle only. On the other side, it’s going to be something between a temper tantrum and a panic attack. That’s excellent news if you’re Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, or Carly Fiorina. It’s less good news if you live in Baltimore or Philadelphia.
Our friends at SoCawlege.com have found another professor saying some interesting things on the Internet.
Their latest find is Dr. Ashwini Tambe, associate professor in the Department of Women’s Studies at the University of Maryland, who has called for “men control,” bashed Rush Limbaugh, and wants women studies taught in high schools.
Tambe, whose faculty profile says her major areas of research include “transnational feminist theory” and “sexuality studies,” has weighed in on a variety of national conversations during her time in the Twitterverse.
Here’s a highlight reel: