Sunday, June 06, 2021

How the gay lobby wins

A NY Times "guest essay" (they don't call them op-eds anymore) explains:
Cancel Culture Works. We Wouldn’t Have Marriage Equality Without It.

By Sasha Issenberg
Mr. Issenberg the author of “The Engagement: America’s Quarter-Century Struggle Over Same-Sex Marriage.”

Anyone looking to understand how same-sex marriage went from legal in one state to the law of the land a decade later ...

Long before the phrase “cancel culture” entered the lexicon or Republican senators complained about the power of “woke capital,” Mr. Karger refined a digital-era playbook for successfully redirecting scrutiny to the opposition's financial backers. The movement to legalize same-sex marriage is often understood as one of civil rights test cases. And indeed, savvy legislative lobbying, fortuitous demographic change and pop-culture influence all played their part, too. But a largely forgotten story is the way a group of political entrepreneurs changed the economic terrain on which cultural conflict was waged. They demonstrated that shaming and shunning could amount to more than an online pile-on and serve as a potent tactic for political change.

The article tells the story of the homosexual lobby getting political wins by intimidation, harassment, outing, and other scumball tactics. Networks of homosexual activists were extremely nasty.

The public was never really convinced of same-sex marriage, but the opposition was bullied into silence. Even California, the more liberal big state, passed a referendum to add to its constitution that marriage is between a man and woman. The amendment is still there, but not enforced.

This reminds me of how Scientology got status as a religion. It personally harassed all of the sensible people with opinions on the issue, until no one wanted to fight them anymore.

Buoyed by this success, what is this gay lobby doing next? It appears that their next target is transgender children. Say anything sensible on the subject, and you will be targeted with all sorts of threats.

I expect most organizations to cave into the extortion on this subject. It is not worth the fight, to them.

This is no way to make social policy. It means that the most immoral factions have the most say.

Another NY Times opinion column argues:

The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on a case that could upend, in the name of religious freedom, 50 years of progress in the effort to provide better support for L.G.B.T.Q. children in the foster system. Such a decision would be a devastating setback for all children in foster care, and set a dangerous precedent that could have broad repercussions.

The question the court has been asked to decide is whether the city of Philadelphia can bar Catholic Social Services from screening future foster parents. The agency claims a religious right under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause to exclude lesbian and gay couples as foster parents. ...

When the case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, was argued before the Supreme Court in November, lawyers for Catholic Social Services maintained that the city should grant it an exemption from Philadelphia’s anti-discrimination law and simply allow it to refer lesbian and gay couples to another agency.

That seems reasonable, but the article argues that the LGBTQ movement will get a setback unless they can erase any possible LGBTQ stigma, and use every opportunity to support foster kids becoming LGBTQ.

We are way beyond tolerance of what consenting adults do in private. The object here is to de-stigmatize child abuse. I wonder what they next plan is, after they win that battle.

No comments: