Have you ever heard the phrase "enough is enough"? Or maybe some variant of it?
I always think "enough is never enough" whenever I hear the latest demand of the gay rights jihad being screamed to get the jihadists their next fix. Just like Lucy holding the football for poor Charlie Brown, the end result is always the same. And they'll say anything they need to say in order to get us all to go along with their promise that this time it'll be different. The promise, of course, is that [insert latest demand] is all they want. And you're being paranoid and ridiculous if you think that we would ever try to [whatever next step in the agenda is].
And then they pull the football away. Again. And the cycle repeats as they start with the next demand.
All I can do is shake my head at the latest demand in the never-ending saga of gay demands.
City of Houston's proposed transgender (nee: men dressing as women and demanding to be treated as a woman) rights ordinance suffered a huge defeat at the ballot box. Not even close. A landslide. Of common sense. In a nutshell, the lesbian mayor of Houston decided that any bathroom in the city was for anyone, no matter their gender or intentions. She famously attacked city churches who opposed her by issuing subpoenas for their sermons, notes, books, papers, etc. Just as in the Proposition 8 fiasco in California a few years ago where marriage was defined by voters in the state Constitution as between one man & one woman, the polls showed overwhelming support for the gay position on the matter, but when it came time to vote in the privacy of the voting booth, traditional values won overwhelming victories. I could write an entire book on the psychology and sociology behind this phenomenon. Suffice it to say that political correctness has most everyone scared to say anything except what the liberals in media, academia, etc. tell us is the approved opinion.
You might remember that Proposition 8 was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. But how did it get there? Gays tried to get married, but couldn't. So they sued, claiming that their rights were being violated. They kept filing suit until a sympathetic California state court ruled in their favor. That was appealed up. The California Supreme Court agreed that it was unconstitutional under the state Constitution to not issue licenses for gays to marry each other. Notwithstanding that they had exactly the same rights as everyone else. They just didn't like their choices and sued to add additional choices that they found more to their taste. But I digress. In response to the California Supreme Court finding that gay marriage was a right under the state's Constitution, opponents filed to add a Constitutional Amendment to the ballot that would once and for all define marriage. This was necessary because there was nothing in the Constitution stating otherwise, but the state Supreme Court had invented the right by their own "interpretation". The measure was deemed Proposition 8 and seemed to have zero chance of passing in ultra-liberal California. To the shock of everyone in media and leftist politics, Prop 8 passed and officially amended the California Constitution. Settling the matter once and for all, one would think. But, just like Lucy with the football, there's always another level. Gay advocates then sued the state of California in a friendly federal court claiming that their federal Constitutional rights were being violated by the California Constitution. That case worked its way through the courts and the U.S. Supreme Court famously struck down that part of the California Constitution, finding that there was a previously unknown right of every American to "marry" a person of the same sex.
This pattern of never stopping, never giving up, never going away, never letting a defeat - no matter how crushing - in a courtroom, at the ballot box or in public opinion, ever deter from the immediate goal or pushing onward for the next goal has become the hallmark of the gay movement. And of most liberal causes, actually. In Houston, for example, the mayor and her gay allies are asking the NFL to boycott the city of Houston and move Super Bowl LI in 2017 to another city in solidarity with gays. The NFL said no.
I've been thinking about this because an acquaintance is participating in a Houston-style push for mentally ill men to have access to little girls' bathrooms in Indiana by amending the Indiana civil rights laws to include transgendered people. Basically, what this law will do is force businesses to let men hang out in whatever bathroom they want based on what gender they feel like they are that day. Anyone who says "no", will be violating the civil rights of the confused person. Here's a campaign ad by the Houston residents opposed to this nonsense:
My friend, in his push to let men join girls in the toilets, tried to stamp out any discussion of the civil rights law he's proposing being used to force churches to perform gay marriages. He claims that the proposed language specifically exempts churches from the law.
But I'm sure we're all familiar with these exemptions in other areas. Remember your local smoking bans? They exempted open-air spaces like stadiums and parks. They also exempted bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, private clubs and casinos. Seatbelt laws were originally never to be enforced in trucks (to get past the resistance of farmers) or as a primary infraction to stop motorists (to get past the objections of civil libertarians). Gun control advocates exempted private sales and other forms of firearm purchases in order to get their laws passed, but now call those exemptions loopholes and blame them for the failure of their laws to do what they promised. But little by little, every single one of those exemptions have been re-labeled as "loopholes" and been closed one by one. Until we find ourselves strangled by laws that could never have been passed without those exemptions. The unspoken rule is that they'll forego those "exemptions" now, but come back later and close them up as "loopholes" in the law that the citizens are abusing.
Another habit of the left is the never-ending promise that this demand is all they want. And that suggestions of the next logical step in the process is ludicrous and that nobody would ever suggest such a thing. It's called incrementalism. It's when you get just a tiny concession, but then build on that concession with other small steps in order to reach some ultimate goal that could never be obtained all at once. It's always derided as the logical fallacy of the slippery slope. But I don't know how it can be a fallacy in the world of American liberal politics because it always actually occurs.
Let's take a look back at how this matter with the gay rights agenda has progressed.
In 1991 I was in law school and the big debate was over the relatively recent case of Bowers v. Hardwick and whether the Supreme Court should overturn state laws criminalizing homosexual conduct. The liberals in class all howled that gays didn't want anything from anybody and just wanted to behave in private however they wanted. They ridiculed those who argued that states would be able to make whatever laws they want or that, if someone wanted a Constitutional right to engage in homosexual acts, that they should amend the Constitution to include such a right. I specifically recall my liberal classmates arguing that "nobody was going to be gay in public" or wanted anything from anyone except to be left alone. Shortly thereafter, the Vermont civil union matter arose and states objected that full faith and credit was going to force states to recognize gay marriage.
That caused the federal Defense of Marriage Act that liberals all lined up to sign into law in order to placate conservatives as a bunch of illiterate hillbillies who were too stupid to understand that gays were not asking - and would never ask - for gay marriage and that such an unthinkable idea would never even be suggested, much less forced on any state that didn't want it. Liberals all laughed about how stupid it was to even suggest that states' individual choices needed protecting from something that was never going to happen.
About that same time, President Clinton pushed Don't Ask Don't Tell for military service, saying that gays just wanted to be left alone and had no desire to be out of the closet. They just didn't want to be investigated, only left alone to their own private lives. Promises were made that any idea that homosexuality would be decriminalized was just uneducated and irrational conservatives being paranoid and having no idea of the simple, private peace that gays wanted.
Then with the gay marriage push, there was the dismissive condescension that gays getting married would have no impact whatsoever on anyone else's life and that these marriages should be nobody else's business. Immediately, though, the lawsuits, regulatory fines and boycotts began going after bakeries, photographers, pizza shops, Chik-fil-A and anyone else who didn't tow the gay mafia line.
So, you'll forgive me for being unconvinced by liberal claims that their latest jihad will have no effect on other things in our community or culture. It will. It always does. Every single time. And no matter what you say, government force is the opposite of freedom. Advocating forcing citizens to do something makes you an enemy of freedom. No matter how you label it.
You may choose to believe Lucy's promises that she won't pull away the football this time, but you'll forgive me for not being fooled anymore and refusing to try to kick it with you. And I can't promise that I won't say "I told ya so" while you lie flat on your back and liberals convince you to get up and come and try to kick it again.