Tuesday, June 08, 2021

LGBTQ Lobby uses Intimidation, not Persuasion

I mentioned a NY Times article that explains that the gay lobby won legal victories by intimidation and harassment, not persuastion.

With a contrary view, Greg Mayer argues:

Issenberg is just flat wrong here. Marriage equality was achieved not through shaming and boycotts of its largely conservative opponents, but by convincing judges of the arguments for marriage equality. Andrew Sullivan, a tireless campaigner for marriage equality, summarized his argument for it at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges:

Homosexuality, at its core, is about the emotional connection between two adult human beings. And what public institution is more central — more definitive — of that connection than marriage? The denial of marriage to gay people is therefore not a minor issue. ... We are not disordered or sick or defective or evil ... the exclusion of gay people from this institution was a statement of our core inferiority not just as citizens but as human beings.

I doubt that anyone was persuaded by Sullivan's argument. I even doubt that Sullivan was. He identifies as a gay Catholic who likes anonymous sex with strangers. His real complaint is that his Church declares that homosexual acts are sins.

The court decision did not affect church marriage. It was more narrowly focused on who can file a joint tax return, or avoid inheritance taxes, or request a death certificate. Sullivan obviously has some kind of psychological self-esteem problem, and I doubt that anyone thinks that we needed a change to civil marriage law to boost his self-esteem.

No, we have same-sex marriage licenses for other reasons.

Another hysterical NY Times guest essay complains about Republicans trying to undo trends in LGBTQ rights. Some states have passed laws supporting girls' sports and bathrooms, to protect practices that have been customary as long as anyone can remember. There are also laws limiting surgery on children.

The essay makes little attempt to persuade, and encourages "defiant intervention" and "active resistance". I guess that means breaking the law to enforce an LGBTQ ideology on everyone. It compares the laws to law legitimizing slavery, and says those were struck down by defiant interventions.

I guess this means that the LGBTQ lobby is threatening civil war to expand the castration of underage boys. They are looking for a fight.

No comments: