New Abp. for San Francisco

Militant mob of Angry Tolerance Thugs Gathers with Pikes and Torches to Smash Free Speech and Thought.

Speaking of which, You’re Doing it Wrong.

The basic posture of the average American about most pelvic issues is “Don’t make me mind somebody else’s business.” So gay “marriage” is gaining support (especially among the young and inexperienced) because most people don’t want to be bothered with what is perceived as crashing into somebody else’s private ceremony about something or other and protesting it. “If gay people want to pretend to be married, whatever. Let them have the pretense,” is the attitude of average Americans.

Conversely, because the average American posture is that of wanting to be let alone and not press-ganged into fussing about the private lives of others, most Americans are also not going to bother with gay brownshirts attempting to shout down and smash the free speech rights of some guy who makes chicken sandwiches. If he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman and he makes good sandwiches, people will eat the sandwiches and regard with detached bemusement the spittle-flecked fanatics who are trying to shout him down. If the spittle-flecked fanatics are smart, they will back down, as the mayor of Boston did when people began to react to his fascist attempt to bring the state in to impose his views on a private business.

If the fanatics are dumb, they will conclude that the bemused and uninterested average person is the enemy for failing to join the jihad and that he needs to be crushed too. My money is on the spittle-flecked fanatic not figuring out that he is wrong and eventually alienating the easy-going average person with his over-bearing fanaticism. Spittle-flecked fanatics do not have an admirable track record in the self-reflection department. That’s why they do these jihads and that’s why Chik-Fil-A business is booming in response to them.

Andrew Sullivan, to his credit, gets this.

  • Confederate Papist

    Reese – “”Clearly, the pope and the Vatican are very concerned about the issue of same-sex marriage and are very opposed to it, and that’s reflected by the kinds of bishops that are being appointed in the United States,” he said.”

    Um…no….clearly the pope and the Vatican are compelled to enforce the Church teachings regarding marriage. Yes, they’re opposed to it, but even if they *weren’t*, they cannot change anything about it….that’s the point.

  • Confederate Papist

    God bless the new bishop, BTW..my prayers are with him.

  • Matthew

    Glenn Greenwald also gets it. And the editorial board of the Boston Globe. The gay rights movement does not march in lockstep.

  • The Deuce

    San Francisco is “one of the hearts of the gay liberation story,” said Michael Harank, 59, a lifelong Catholic who founded an independent Catholic agency in Oakland for homeless people with HIV.

    *facepalm*
    You’ve got to be particularly dense to chirp on about “gay liberation” while running an agency to deal with the fallout of said “liberation.”

    • dpt

      Good point.

      I read through a bunch of the comments and the inconsistency and lack of critical thought is quite apparent coming from the SF progressives.

      Some have accused the Church, because of its teachings against contraception, for the spread of AIDS, yet others argue the Church is out of touch as “98% of Catholics” ignore the teaching about birth control.

      So which is it? Are people gettings AIDS because they obey the Pope’s edicts about condom use (while ignoring the Church’s teachings about sex being part of the marriage conventant, etc.)? Or why are they getting AIDS if everyone is essentially ignoring the irrelevant teachings proclaimed by a bunch of old men in the Vatican?

      • The Deuce

        AIDS has been spread almost entirely by gay sodomy, and I’m pretty sure it’s not because gays are going condomless during gay sex as a result of the Pope telling them not to wear condoms. Just a hunch.

  • ds

    Mark, not to be pedantic, but this isn’t a free speech issue. Anti-gay conservatives are still completely free to say whatever they like without government restriction, same as liberals, thus no infringement on the first amendment. Saying it’s a free speech issue is like saying the conservative Miss California pageant’s free speech rights were restricted because she was criticized and maybe lost the pageant because of her “pro-family” statements. She can say what she likes, and others can critcize her for it, free speech all around.

    • Dale Price

      No, threatening to deny permits to businesses because of what their principals say is viewpoint discrimination, full stop. That’s a governmental act, and one that runs afoul of the First Amendment. It is anti-free speech, and it’s foolish to pretend otherwise.

    • CJ

      City officials (mayor, alderman) in Chicago and Boston threatened to block Chick-Fil-A from opening businesses in their cities due to their stance on marriage.

    • SecretAgentMan

      Chik Fil A can’t force people to buy their food. Chicago can force unlicensed businesses to close. The inequality in power is what distinguishes this situation from your beauty-pagent metaphor. Lenin once said, “You’re free to say what you like. And I’m free to shoot you for saying it.” That’s not the kind of freedom the first amendment is for.

  • http://lamentablysane.blogspot.com Beefy Levinson

    I had never even heard of Chick-fil-A before that brouhaha erupted. Curious, I did a google search and discovered that there’s a Chick-fil-A not too far from here. Now they have a new customer. The chicken’s not too bad actually. And it has the added bonus of providing me with an opportunity to stick my thumb in the eyes of the tolerance nazis.

    • Micha Elyi

      Nothing gets people to turn out like the phrase “Banned in Boston.”

  • http://www.2catholicmen.blogspot.com Ben @ Two Men

    The average American thinks it’s not their business because they don’t see the connections. G.K. Chesterton once said, “Thinking means connecting things”. Public institutions (like marriage) shape our ideas and ideas have consequences. Accepting same-sex marriage extends the idea that marriage and procreation are not inexorably linked. This further extends our problem of sexual confusion and thus accentuates all its ill effects. Removing the rational basis for a norm will erode adherence to that norm.

    • Mark Shea

      No argument from me. The attempt to empty the word “marriage” of all meaning beyond “I demand approval for whatever I want to do with my pelvis” will be catastrophic.

    • http://creativefidelity.wordpress.com Dan F.

      This is exactly why I’ve been arguing that what we’re seeing now (same sex ‘marriage’) is the natural result of the embrace of contraception by the vast majority of Christian groups in the US. As soon as it was considered ‘ok’ to contracept in a marriage we had reached the cultural tipping point and we are now on the other side.

      • Nate

        Dan F, right on. (Mary Eberstadt makes that point nicely in her recent book, “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” which I’m sure you’ve read.)

        This is why, me thinks, the issue of gay marriage is a difficult issue to fight in the ‘ecumenical tranches,’ as it were. The ‘conservative’ evangelical who sees no problem with birth control just doesn’t get it. I’d say, contrary to the banner cry, that “Evangelicals and Catholics [just ain't] Together.” At least not on this.

        The Catholic Church is the only organization that is making a truly compelling case.

        • Marion (Mael Muire)

          “The ‘conservative’ evangelical who sees no problem with birth control just doesn’t get it”

          I think the conservative evangelical who sees no problem with birth control but who does see a problem with state-recognition of same-sex pretend marriage, arrives at his conclusion not by considering natural law informed by Sacred Scripture, as we Catholics do, but from a literal line-by-line reading of Sacred Scripture. His is a stripped-down reading of Sacred Scripture, studied apart from the analysis and reflection of saints and scholars over the centuries, by which we Catholics understand that both contraception and sodomy offend against God’s purposes for the gift of human sexuality. The evangelical reads about the sin of Onan as in a vacuum: Onan’s sin might be characterized as one against the nature of sexuality, or it might be characterized as a refusal to raise up children for a dead brother, as commanded by God. By reading each Scriptural text as in a vacuum, there is room for ambiguity, room for each Evangelical to make his own interpretation. What matters ultimately is that even the Evangelical’s most literalist reading of Scripture yields several resounding, explicit, and definitive prohibitions against sodomy, but Scripture’s references of contraception are much rarer and much more ambiguous.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X