Here’s a post from Legal Insurrection, a prominent law blog.
King & Spalding has withdrawn from representing the House of Representatives with regard to the Defense of Marriage Act. King & Spalding was hired after the Obama administration abruptly – and disingenuously — changed its legal position recently.
The attempts to intimidate, both politically and sometimes physically, supporters of traditional marriage are nothing new.
The strategy is to define the traditional marriage view as bigotry on par with racism. Once you accept that premise, then everything else follows and is justified. Even expressing a legal view that there is no federal constitutional right to same sex marriage — a view expressed under oath by Elena Kagan — now constitutes hate speech.
There were numerous boycotts of businesses owned by people who supported Prop. 8 in California, including a boycott organized by an association of law professors.
Taking it one step further, there was a widespread campaign to demonize and boycott Mormon-owned businesses in the wake of Prop. 8 in California…
[...]Now the intimidation has moved beyond political supporters of Prop. 8 and Mormons, and into an attempt to deprive pro-traditional marriage groups of their counsel of choice. As Jennifer Rubin points out (via John Hinderaker), the attempt to intimidate lawyers into not representing pro-traditional marriage clients is part of a deliberate strategy, not a haphazard reaction.
[...]Would such lawyers and staff now be afraid to express their views on the subject, fearing a backlash against their individual careers much as King & Spaulding feared a backlash? If representing the pro-traditional marriage view is unacceptable for the firm, would there be a hostile work environment for such people?
Dennis Prager wrote more about how same-sex marriage affects society back in 2008.
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming — to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.
The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity — especially females — can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is “heterosexism,” a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger — if they show only women fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians — i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture — will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have abandoned adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it — a man and a woman.
Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be morally regarded the same as racist. And soon it will be a hate crime.
Indeed — and this is the ultimate goal of many of the same-sex marriage activists — the terms “male” and “female,” “man” and “woman” will gradually lose their significance. They already are. On the intellectual and cultural left, “male” and “female” are deemed social constructs that have little meaning. That is why same-sex marriage advocates argue that children have no need for both a mother and a father — the sexes are interchangeable. Whatever a father can do a second mother can do. Whatever a mother can do, a second father can do. Genitalia are the only real differences between the sexes, and even they can be switched at will.
And what will happen after divorce — which presumably will occur at the same rates as heterosexual divorce? A boy raised by two lesbian mothers who divorce and remarry will then have four mothers and no father.
We have entered something beyond Huxley’s “Brave New World.”… Our children and their children will pay the price.
Check out this vandalism at a Catholic church by supporters of same-sex marriage. The vandalism says “where is the love?” I don’t think that the vandals showed much love for those who disagree with same-sex marriage, though. And sometimes the consequences for disagreement can be much worse than vandalism. It can mean legal consequences, sensitivity indoctrination, vandalism, or even violence. What’s sad is that the well-meaning young leftists, who think what they are doing is compassionate, are actually encouraging this coercion.
How would allowing gays to marry affect your life?
- Republicans hire top lawyer to defend traditional marriage against Democrats
- California Democrats mandate gay history in public schools
- Brown University students attack pro-marriage sign at demonstration
- Queen’s University feminist professor says that polygamy should be permitted
- Obama administration believes that traditional marriage is unconstitutional
- Frank Turek lists ten alleged facts about same-sex marriage
- Which family configuration is best for raising children?
- Why do people oppose same-sex marriage?
- What causes homosexuality? Is there a gay gene?
- Obama praises non-traditional families on National Family Day
- UK Equalities Minister introduces law allowing gays to marry in churches
- Christian business owners found guilty for disagreeing with homosexuality
- Belgian archbishop targeted by gay activists over AIDS remarks
- Christian couple barred from having foster children
- Gay federal judge rules traditional marriage unconstitutional in California
- Christian student loses case with Eastern Michigan University
- Ireland considers bill to criminalize dissent from same-sex civil unions
- Catholic Charities closes adoption agency due to same-sex marriage law
- Do Democrats like Chai Feldblum believe in religious liberty?
- Do Democrats like Martha Coakley believe in religious liberty?
- How Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill will impact religious liberty
- Christianity under fire from secular governments in San Francisco and Quebec
- The persecution of a Catholic Bishop (at Blazing Cat Fur)
- The persecution of Rev. Stephen Boissoin (at Ezra Levant)
- The persecution of Catholic Insight magazine (at Ezra Levant)
- The persecution of Christian businessman Scott Brockie (at The Interim)
- Tactics and talking points for defending traditional marriage
- What happens when same-sex marriage conflicts with religious liberty?
- Can a person disagree without being hateful or inciting violence?