Thursday, April 9, 2015

Ken Blackwell's alternate reality explored

Ken Blackwell

According to a post by Ken Blackwell on Thursday, Gay Activist Claims 'End of Marriage' Is Near. They have been saying that “the end is near” in one form, or another for over 2,000 years. It never happens but the appeal still works. Go figure. Blackwell — who is a “Senior Fellow, Family Empowerment” at Family Research Council — goes on to say:
There is a "Back to the Future" quality to the current culture clash going on in Indiana, in the country at large, and throughout the Western democracies over marriage and over the gay lobby's insatiable demands.
By “insatiable demands,” Blackwell is probably referring to equal protection under law with a dose of respect for the establishment clause in the First Amendment.

Then we just start to get to the good stuff:
End–of-Marriage activist Chai Feldblum famously told an audience at Family Research Council, my organization, that in any conflict between religious freedom and gay rights, she could not imagine an instance where the religious freedom side could win. Or should win. It was not despite that oft-expressed radical belief that President Obama named her to the powerful Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) but because of it.
“End-marriage-activist?” I'll get to that in a moment. Chai Feldblum never said what Blackwell claims she said to an audience at Family Research Council. Feldblum did appear on a panel at FRC in July of 2008. What was she thinking? The heavily edited FRC video from that panel begins with that written quote sourced from Maggie Gallagher (the anti-gay world is rather incestuous) writing for the Weekly Standard. For all we know, Gallagher was quoting someone else quoting Feldblum. Feldblum might have written or said  that and I don't necessarily disagree with Dr. Feldblum's sentiment but it is out of context. Feldblum also wrote that “gay people—of all individuals—should recognize the injustice of forcing a person to disaggregate belief or identity from practice.” Doesn't sound terribly radical to me.

Then we get to the end-of-marriage stuff:
Is Prof. Feldblum really in favor of ending marriage? You can judge for yourself. She was a prime mover in the manifesto listed here. The radicals who issued this document believe that any number of adults should be given legal custody of any number of children. And when they receive such legal custody, they can induce these children to try to change their sex. They can then legally sign papers for the children to undergo chemical injections and surgical cuttings that will render these children sterile.
That link is to BeyondMarriage.org which published a 2006 treatise that Feldblum signed. How anyone could deduce that it called for the end of marriage is beyond any reasonable analysis of the document. In that same paragraph Blackwell seems to suggest that the purpose of gay marriage is to induce children to change gender and then have surgery. Where did that come from?

The he goes off the rails:
We are not given the option to "live and let love." We must embrace and applaud every advance of this movement. We must celebrate what they want to do to our country, our churches and synagogues, our schools and our families.
Seriously Ken, nobody gives a flying fuck if you approve of our families? Your approval and consent are not solicited, expected or required.

Then we get the requisite Civil Rights Era imagery:
Our opponents believe they are the modern equivalent of the black Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. They are not. They were not arrested, jailed, attack or lynched simply for claiming their constitutional rights.

This movement is like the 1960s in one respect: We are once again being drafted. Like it or not, Americans are being forced into supporting a government policy many may consider wrong, immoral and ultimately a failure.
I will tell you who  does make that comparison. That would be Congressman John Lewis. Rep. Lewis (as well as many other civil rights leaders) believes that equal protection under the law is a universal doctrine. Lewis, BTW, is the only living "Big Six" leader of the American civil rights movement. Lewis was a participant; Blackwell was not. Blackwell is simply a beneficiary. And, no, Mr. Blackwell is not being oppressed by the government simply because gay people are being permitted to marry. How does that affect him in any way whatsoever? Oh the persecution!

There's always room for some more 1960s imagery:
During those troubled 1960s, millions of young Americans protested. Many burned draft cards, refused to report for induction and marched against a government they believed had lost touch with its own people.

We may see such a movement again. Only this time, the Conscientious Objectors will be Christians, Jews, Muslims and others of goodwill who seek to deny no one's civil rights, but who are determined not to join this new conscript army.
Oh please. This is not the Vietnam War for God's sake. The only people who could actually do anything in the form of an objection would be wedding vendors who could refuse service which may, or may not, be lawful. The overwhelming majority of wedding vendors, however, are legally sane and grateful for the business. How, exactly, does Mr. Blackwell intend to conscientiously object to same-sex marriage? What will he do and who cares? Blackwell wants to portray himself as a victim. “Poor Ken.”

But victims abound:
“Should Mom-And-Pops That Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed?” That's the ominous question raised by Conor Friedersdorf in the liberal online journal, The Atlantic. To his credit, Mr. Friedersdorf, a supporter of legal marriage for same-sex couples, answers NO.

But to all too many in the media, in corporate boardrooms, in academia, the answer is: Crush them! Drive them out of business! Let's note here, too, that destroying "Mom-and-Pops" is also a nice, politically correct way of eliminating the competition for huge multi-national corporations. Maybe it's the designator "Mom-and-Pop" that really offends the Left.
Maybe it's being told “We don't serve your kind here” that offends gay people. And maybe owners of public accommodations should just obey state and local non-discrimination laws. And just maybe they should realize that arranging flowers or baking a cake does not offer approval of anything — approval which isn't sought in the first place. But the multinational conspiracy theory is a nice touch from Blackwell.

Finally,
We are conscientious objectors in this latest culture clash. We will not go quietly into a "1984" world of Orwellian world of "doublespeak." We will stand up against the pink panzers of political correctness.

We won't stop speaking out. Don't draft us!
Who, exactly is “we?” Is this the American Society of Christianist Wedding Vendors? What is this idiot trying to say and who does he speak for? Seriously.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.