What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Post at "The Stream"--Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Persecution of the Hobbits

I have a new post up at a relatively new web site: "The Stream" is a conservative news and culture site.

My post is called "Same-Sex 'Marriage' and the Persecution of the Hobbits" and emphasizes the relative powerlessness of the common victims of the "tolerance" bullies.

It seems to me that this is particularly important to keep in mind, because it is easy for "thinky" people to consider this fight in terms of a battle of ideas and hence to make it abstract, forgetting all the non-thinky people who are at grave risk. It's certainly true that those considering going into the world of academe have to watch their backs, especially when untenured, but by no means should "thinky" people consider that to be a persecution unique to them. In fact, I tend to see the boom swinging round at this point and making it even harder for people in business than for people in the academic world. At least the latter have tenure to strive for. Moreover, losing one's job is really bad, but losing one's job and one's house and one's entire life savings is worse. At this point the shrieking harpies of tolerance (HT to Jake Freivald for giving me that phrase) are definitely going after the total ruin of any who oppose them--a scorched earth policy--as we see in the case of Barronelle Stutzman. It seems plausible to me that small business owners may have the fewest protections against this.

I also published the post in deep disgust at any who claim to be "conservative" who are advocating homosexual "marriage." That they are undeniably giving aid and comfort to a near-Communist policy of sheer persecution and destruction, while sitting pretty in their cushy academic positions, is a revolting thought. I'm looking at you, Steven Calabresi.

Comments (29)

Love the article, Lydia, even though at the same time it's so disturbing. I saw an article yesterday that I can't track down about how no major law firms are even willing to argue against same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court, either out of fear of the backlash or because (more implausibly) it goes against their scruples. If I remember correctly from the book (not the movie), some of the hobbits threw in their lot with Saruman. I see a lot of evangelical in the "non-thinky" group going with the tide, and that bothers me more than anything. Like sheep without a shepherd.

"If I remember correctly from the book (not the movie), some of the hobbits threw in their lot with Saruman." A few did, yes. Very disturbing.

At this point the shrieking harpies of tolerance (HT to Jake Freivald for giving me that phrase) are definitely going after the total ruin of any who oppose them--a scorched earth policy--as we see in the case of Barronelle Stutzman.

And as GamerGate has shown, the left is remarkably susceptible to its own tactics being used in retaliation.

It greatly saddens me that none other than Andrew Klavan has said that he's in favor of homosexual unions being "recognized by the state," (if not "marriage" at least civil union) even while he will also openly condemn "the gay mafia." I'm rather gob-smacked that for such a sharp political thinker, he doesn't get why this position is logically and practically untenable.

Not only have the hobbits been more honorable, they've also been more informed and thoughtful than the "thinky" people. It was the O'Connor's of Memories Pizza, not a legal expert on CNN, who understood the difference between refusing a class of people service* with catering an event which directly contradicts a deeply held religious conviction.

*Not that discrimination by class of people is always wrong or should be illegal. Discrimination is normally good, and freedom of association presupposes it. God discriminated by choosing to reveal Himself through the Israelites (not Egyptians or Moabites or Middianites) and He discriminates by saving only those who place their faith in Christ.

Good point, GW. From a legal point of view, they have an excellent distinction. It is the courts that have arbitrarily decided that homosexual acts and the celebration thereof are "intrinsic" to homosexual identity and hence that to refuse to participate in the celebration is to discriminate against the persons. This is far from obvious legally. For example, if I were a T-shirt maker and refused to make a T-shirt saying, "Women rule, men drool," it would not follow that my refusal to publish this aggressive feminist message constituted discrimination against women as a class.

who understood the difference between refusing a class of people service* with catering an event which directly contradicts a deeply held religious conviction.

In my experience, "thinky people" tend to find it incomprehensible that rather than becoming Christians to "validate our bigotry" we came to believe homosexuality is immoral because we believe Christianity is true. It's just mind boggling to them that any sane person would submit their reasoning to a religious worldview rather than choose a religion that validates their feelings.

In my experience, "thinky people" tend to find it incomprehensible that rather than becoming Christians to "validate our bigotry" we came to believe homosexuality is immoral because we believe Christianity is true.

Well that's particularly silly for those of us who were Christians long before we had more than the vaguest idea about what homosexuality was. If anybody actually thinks that, he must be under thirty years of age. Plenty of people in America even a few decades ago scarcely ever _thought_ about homosexuality, so they were certainly not choosing a religion to undergird their "bigoted" opinions on this bizarre, fringy topic.

Accusation of bigotry comes easily to the libertarian. Believing as he does that state has no authority to legislate in moral matters, he can only ascribe the proposed legislation as manifestation of bigotry and irrational animus.
Even in non-moral legislation, such as immigration, the libertarian rhetoric abounds in accusation of irrational racism against any conservative proposal to restrict immigration. Witness Prof Caplan's popular libertarian blog EconLog.

FOr the libertarian ideology rules out politics in principle, since the political community itself is a delusion, in the first place ("Lose the We" is a libertarian slogan), any intrusion of politics is irrution of irrationality in otherwise rational economic discourse.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/political-straight-talk-about-religious-liberty-gay-rights/

"That is, to make it where no discrimination based on LGBT status is permitted — at all. Twenty-eight states now lack these laws, including most of the presidential swing states. The smart LGBT strategists are likely two years into planning this next stage, and that’s exactly what I would do if I were them. These are serious and capable political operatives.

The business community is already on their side."

As already noted by Lydia, the courts have "arbitrarily decided that homosexual acts and the celebration thereof are "intrinsic" to homosexual identity and hence that to refuse to participate in the celebration is to discriminate against the persons". Given that, I wonder what this 'Campaign for Full Equality' really entails. If Dreher is right about "no discrimination at all". Perhaps, I should say I shudder to think what that really means, and also hope that maybe they will be so heavy handed that sympathy really does swing (or so light-handed that this campaign does not amount to much at all). I also wonder how many people who presently support ss"m" still would if they had any idea this was coming. Based on everything I know, I would think a 'Campaign for Full Equality' means something like there will be no place left in society for people to believe anything other than marriage involves homosexual (and heterosexual*) relationships and homosexual behavior is a social and moral good that *must* be celebrated.

*If anything at this point, it seems that heterosexual marriages are regarded as inferior to homosexual "marriages". For example, one can openly suggest that homosexual couples are even better and more responsible "parents" than are a man and woman who have and raise their own children. This is a position that is taken to be common sense and supported by the best social science. However, to suggest it is best for a kid to be loved and raised by their own mom and dad is considered to be pure, irrational bigotry.

Conservatism is basically useless for the Christian, as I outline in my blog post here

http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/reactionaries-say-what-conservatives.html

In my own words:

"The Conservative can never admit to being intolerant, even by the left's warped definition. It would be the end of him. He just cannot bear the scorn of his Liberal overlords. By way of contrast, I as a Reactionary fully admit to being guilty of almost every thoughtcrime the left has devised, and I can tell you it's liberating to stop playing the left's games, to stop trying to sound like an acceptable opposition to them. I don't want to be acceptable to the left. If the left doesn't want me dead or locked up, then what opposition am I really offering? Nothing but a paltry foil for their political machinations to try and convince the citizenry that they really do have choices."

Conservatism has been and remains a controlled opposition ideology. It has been paraphrased thus, today's Conservative would be considered a Moderate 15 years ago, a Liberal 30 years ago, a Communist 50 years ago, an Anarchist 100 years ago, and insane 300 years ago. Such is the vacuous tide of Enlightenment thinking, the Overton Window shifts ever leftward and Conservatives huff and puff to stay in frame.

The sooner the nation's Christians realize only radical Reactionary politics will liberate them from becoming a harried dhimmi class in Liberalism's utopia, the better.

"Based on everything I know, I would think a 'Campaign for Full Equality' means something like there will be no place left in society for people to believe anything other than marriage involves homosexual (and heterosexual*) relationships and homosexual behavior is a social and moral good that *must* be celebrated."

To put this in scientific terms, what the left is attempting to do is increase the, "social entropy," which is a measure of how equally possible each state in the system is (another way to say it is how random or unpreferred each state is). Social entropy has been increasing for years. Unfortunately, in information-theoretic terms, the higher the entropy, the less information the system is capable of conveying. Thus, a truly, "equal," society in every sense of the word would be the equivalent of covering a man's face with a stocking mask so that no identifying traits are observable. In other words, the end goal of an equalized society is the evaporation of society, since a society is made up of people united by identifying characteristics.

The Chicken

That's an interesting analysis, Chicken, but I'm not _sure_ it works for trying to force people to celebrate homosexual behavior. After all, the person still has to be able to discern that what is being requested falls into the newly defined set of "real weddings." For example, if you walked into a baker's and asked him to make you a cake with _three_ figures on top to celebrate your "polyamorous wedding," he'd still be permitted to refuse. Or if you said you were "marrying" a four-year-old, the wedding services would all be able to refuse.

So it's not so much like removing information from the system as like changing the rules of the game with new information: Now you must recognize two men (precisely two) or two women (precisely two) as possible candidates for the celebrations and perks that you would normally bestow upon a union known as "marriage."

Something similar is going on with the "transgender" movement. It's not just a failure to recognize gender differences that is demanded (which would be crazy enough). It is rather positively _learning_ the information about whatever weird designations a person wants to be known as and then applying those subserviently. So, this guy looks like a man but wants to be called a woman. You have to learn that he is "really a transgender woman" and then call him by his new preferred name, not object when he enters the women's shower room, and so forth. This girl says that she is "agender" and demands to be referred to as "it." All her teachers must now refer to her as "it" or else find some way to avoid referring to her in the third person at all. And so forth.

In some ways these games actually add information to the system, but it's crazy, arbitrary information that merely designates people's whims and unnatural desires and the requirement that we cater (pun intended) to those unnatural whims and desires.

You have to learn that he is "really a transgender woman" and then call him by his new preferred name, not object when he enters the women's shower room, and so forth.

I believe Saul Alinsky said that one of the first steps toward bringing down your enemy is to make them live up to their own creed. Planet Fitness expelled a (most likely moderate or liberal) woman for raising hell about a transgendered person using the women's locker room. Conservatives living in areas like yours with non-discrimination laws should not oppose this. If anything, they should demand that these policies and laws be enforced as consistently and ruthlessly across the broader jurisdiction as possible because only then will the population possibly demand reform.

You want to bring it to a crisis? Have a few James O'Keefe types go undercover as liberals and sue a Muslim bakery under the same non-discrimination law. Get a black bakery into court for refusing to do a white nationalist-themed wedding. Even if they don't win, what matters is making the liberals feel the fear of having the law applied consistently.

Get a black bakery into court for refusing to do a white nationalist-themed wedding.

That one would be thrown out because white nationalists do not have "protected class status" in law. Sodomites, in many jurisdictions, do.

By the way, I am unable to resist a con-law geek note here apropos of all the traitor faux "originalist" writing arguments for same-sex "marriage." Because these guys are all lawyers and all con-law geeks at least as much as I am, they know perfectly well that what they are arguing for is applying the 14th amendment to extend special "protected class status" to homosexuals. They know this. The entire mechanism of "protected class status" is what all of 14th amendment jurisprudence is about, and has been about for decades.

Despite knowing this, these fakers, who must know better, are using arguments that the 14th amendment was intended to "eliminate caste distinctions" as their basis for pretending there is an "originalist case" for homosexual "marriage." So the claim that the 14th was intended to eliminate caste distinctions is being used to add a _new_, specially protected _class_ of people to the existing list in jurisprudence (along with minorities, women, and the disabled).

This is necessarily the case because it is, of course, literally impossible to apply the 14th amendment in such a way that it dictates absolute equality among all conceivable groups of people. Thus conceived it would make all laws impossible and require anarchy--e.g., a law that sends thieves to jail separates people into the class of thieves and non-thieves and treats them differently.

The entire creaky mechanism of heightened scrutiny and protected class status has evolved for that reason--that the 14th cannot mean that a state must literally treat everybody alike no matter what. Hence, some distinctions are regarded as rational (not allowing 5-year-olds to drive) while others are treated as irrational (not recognizing interracial marriage). This is because 5-year-olds per se (or children) do not have protected class status, and distinctions by age in law are not deemed suspect, but distinctions by race are.

Here's another attack idea: force the US Olympic Committee to take away Bruce Jenner's gold medal (which he won competing against the wrong gender), and (after all the ruckus about that) then force them to "open up" the US Olympics (and other sporting bodies) to more genders: nutrois, genderqueer, and two-spirit, for example. That's more gender-distinct teams and competitions.

Force sports (which is big business, and therefore big money) to repudiate the nonsense by overplaying the gender card. Force NCAA into all of a sudden demanding (under title IX) a whole bunch more sport teams for all the OTHER genders out there, (and new locker rooms). And force the universities to pay out just as many scholarships for nutrois, genderqueer, two-spirit, and all the others of the 58 genders. And point out to them that IT DOESN'T MATTER if only 3 people come forward for the opportunity. No, no, the fact that they don't have more students who are asking is PROOF of gender bias in school admissions policy, (results-based measurement of equality is de riguer), and the schools must actively seek out more of the "other" genders by affirmative action.

Force Little League organizations to adopt the same standards (if it was good enough for the Boy Scouts, it is good enough for Little League): separate teams for boys, girls, its, nutrois, genderqueers, intersexes, etc. Force the Feds to charter not just Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, but Nutrois Scouts, Intersex Scouts, and so on.

Force some government entities to devise brand new lists of pronouns (not that anyone will pay attention):

He she it theer que
His hers its theers quers
Himself herself itself theerself querself

Anyone can get in the game. Come up with your own list. Try one for "intersex." Indeed, I am pretty sure that sooner or later someone will be insisting on a PERSONAL, UNIQUE gender:

Bob
Bobs
Bobself

Get NGO's spending all their time pursuing wigged-out liberal government agencies on failure to promote all the different gender pronouns, (and not installing 57 more flavors of bathrooms). Get the queer organizations tied up in knots fighting each other over pronouns and who ought to get more money: those who represent more people, or those who represent FEWER people precisely because they have been discriminated against more (their smaller numbers proves the success of prior bias).

And I saved the best for last: sue HOSPITALS that provide services for sex-change doctors for treating men and women differently. Get them chasing their tails with law suits that use the fact that they (the hospitals) allowed - maybe even promoted - that nurses and staff treat a person with male organs differently than a person with female organs. For example, they scheduled surgery for MALE patients to have their sex organs turned into fake female organs, but they never scheduled FEMALE patients for that same operation. That there is gender discrimination.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/03/3642280/fixing-religious-liberty-bills-good-lgbt-equality-not-good-enough/

Adding "sexual orientation" to the Civil Rights Act with *no* religious exemptions is the next thing. Not that it is not already something being pursued, but that the marriage ruling will probably accelerate it.

I imagine the same nonsensical arguments that say the 14th amendment mandates ss"m" will also be used to say it also mandates this classification being added to the Civil Rights Act (i.e. sexual orientation is just like race).

This strikes me as a likely deathblow to Christian schools and universities. If it works out that way, would it be possible for these schools to bow on admissions and hiring. Such that practicing homosexuals can be students and hired as faculty, and then mandate all students take classes that teach Christian ethics and morals with respect to sexuality. Basically, these schoola would cease to be distinctive Christian communities but would become places where Christian beliefs and values are taught to everyone that shows up.

I am mentioning schools because they will be easy targets. Churches will be harder to go after. The ministerial exemption at least seems strong. Granted, I do not know if that exemption would really hold up if a religious group fired a black minister because they were black.

Also, adding "sexual orientation" is probably another example of the zero-sum game. When that is added, it probably means that the Civil Rights Act will not protect people that hold traditional beliefs. After all these beliefs will be classified as bigotry rather than religious, hence the religion classification in the act will not apply.

If it works out that way, would it be possible for these schools to bow on admissions and hiring. Such that practicing homosexuals can be students and hired as faculty, and then mandate all students take classes that teach Christian ethics and morals with respect to sexuality. Basically, these schoola would cease to be distinctive Christian communities but would become places where Christian beliefs and values are taught to everyone that shows up.

Possible, as in logically possible. But wrong. And who teaches the Christian values and beliefs? Oh, yeah, all those active homosexuals you just hired. After all, you can't discriminate and not let them teach your "Christian Values and Morals" classes, can you?

If they won't do their job and teach what they are required to, fire them. Granted, that does not completely solve the problem. I'd like to see them claim they were being discriminated against because they had to teach that homosexual behavior is intrinsically immoral. Even more so since many possible objectors wouldn't practice homosexuality anyway.

I would not put it past a judge to find that merely communicating Christian values (or homophobic bigotry in their words) constitutes discrimination against people that have a homosexual "identity". At least in the context of a school. Regardless, it would end the charade that is merely about letting practicing homosexuals participate.

Oh, well, as an administrator I'd shut the previously Christian college down before I would hire active homosexuals. That would be, at best, running a functionally secular school that I would have no interest in running and that alumni and donors should have no interest in funding and that the board of trust should have no interest in being the board of trust for and that parents who want their kids to get a Christian college education should have no interest in paying for (all of these having previously supported an actual *Christian* school). And that's at best. At worst it would involve the pretense of running an actually Christian school which would mean deceiving parents, donors, alumni, and trustees and taking money and students under false pretenses.

After all these beliefs will be classified as bigotry rather than religious, hence the religion classification in the act will not apply.

Well, that's really the rub, isn't it? The (secular) judges are trying with might and main to force that conclusion, but not everyone is on board with the program, even in the judicial system. Even if the Supreme Court tries to rule that way, there is a remote possibility of evoking a reaction against it - a president or a state governor (or, preferably, both) who say "nuts to your idiot decision."

"shrieking harpies of tolerance"

This is not quite right. Harpies were generally depicted as a nuisance: thieves and despoilers.

The image you want here is "shrieking furies of tolerance." The furies were the instruments of infernal retribution, the underworld's agents of punishment. We're very much past the harpy stage.

Good point, Titus.

I agree that a (formerly) Christian school should not give pretense that they remain such in the hopes of being supported by the people that had been supporting the institution. I also am open to the these kinds of institutions "voluntarily" shutting down *if* the law makes them hire people who are opposed to the mission of the institution (which I think is likely to happen).

My suggestion was predicated on the formerly Christian school *not* making any pretense of being a Christian school, but only being a school in which Christian theology and values are taught to every student. A school that teaches Christianity but is open that (by law) they are not allowed to be a Christian community. This was meant to be an alternative option to "voluntarily" closing the doors.

For what it is worth, I was just listening to the Stand to Reason podcast from this week and a caller shared how her daughter got fired for refusing to march in gay pride parade in Canada. She inquired to authorities if there was anything that protected her and was told there was no job protection for her because she was guilty of discrimination (yes her, not her employer). I am not up on the law in Canada, but I believe it is safe to assume there is job protection for people that do march in gay pride parades. Just none for those that do not.

What the authorities are hoping for is capitulation and/or voluntary shutting down. The best thing these schools could do is simultaneously refuse to obey the courts as an act of civil disobedience and continue as normal. Force them to send police and arrest people. Force them to seize assets. In a word, force them to act like thugs.

Mike T-

I like the idea. I would want to see the thuggery exposed if and when non-discrimination laws are used against Christian institutions. Not so sure I would be happy to see people go to jail and face fines if there were other options. I dont think my suggestion amounts to complete and total capitulation, even though it is indeed capitulation. Granted, if it goes this far I expect either anti-discrimination laws or anti-bullying initiatives will not even let my idea work.

"Based on everything I know, I would think a 'Campaign for Full Equality' means something like there will be no place left in society for people to believe anything other than marriage involves homosexual (and heterosexual*) relationships and homosexual behavior is a social and moral good that *must* be celebrated."

Give it five or ten years, and the only way to "prove" the one is not "homophobic" (especially if one is an attractive younger man) will be to perform on demand a certain crude act that the delicacy of others here forbids me to name directly.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.