GAY TRUTH

As LGBT activists continue their efforts to impose acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism in the country at large, one prominent conservative thinker has offered a unique legislative proposal he says may help conservatives go back on offense in the culture wars. For months, conservatives have been debating how to respond to instances of left-wing cultural aggression such as Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH), which is the practice of cross-dressers reading to small children in public libraries for the express purpose of acclimating them to notions of gender-fluidity. New York Post editor Sohrab Ahmari initiated the debate in May by identifying National Review writer David French as emblematic of a certain breed of conservative unsuited to meaningfully resist such projects; French argues that DQSH is a free-speech issue government is powerless to prevent. Last week, Hadley Arkes, eminent Amherst College political scientist and architect of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act

Spend enough time on the front lines of the culture wars, and it’s easy to become jaded by a sense that we’re fighting against the current. Unity on the right to life is hamstrung by rampant confusion about tactics, and LGBT activists’ shift from homosexuality to gender fluidity is thanks in no small part to the Right’s near-total surrender to the redefinition of marriage. But every once in a while, we get a reminder that cultural collapse isn’t inevitable. This week, that glimmer of hope came in the form of the Public Religion Research Institute’s latest annual survey of American attitudes on LGBT issues. Overall, the report was nothing to cheer — support for LGBT “nondiscrimination” (by which liberals don’t mean protecting gays or transgenders from actual mistreatment, but conscripting Christians into serving same-sex “weddings” and forcing people to share bathrooms and locker rooms with the opposite sex) has either held firm or risen among most demographics. But there was one

Are people more suspicious than they once were of moralism in public policy ? So  Ross Douthat   argues  in a column about legalized gambling and marijuana. The spread of casinos is driven by states seeking revenue and gaming lobbyists pressing their agenda, whereas weed legalization is driven by activists, "influenced by empathy for the terminally ill, and hastened by public exhaustion with the drug war," Douthat writes. "But both have been made possible by the same trend in attitudes: the rise of a live-and-let-live social libertarianism , the weakening influence of both religious conservatism and liberal communitarianism, the growing suspicion of moralism in public policy."          WE REJECT MORALS THAT FORBID HOMOSEXUALITY It's a plausible theory, but the last line about moralism makes me want to quibble. Maybe people want public policy to reflect their moral judgments as much as ever, but they no longer regard smoking marijuana or casino gamblin

English: DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 29JAN10 - David Cameron, Leader of the Conservative Party, United Kingdom, speaks during the session 'Rethinking Government Assistance' in the Congress Centre of the Annual Meeting 2010 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 29, 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) ROME, – Since the push for " gay marriage " started, people who opposed it have absolutely refused to engage in discussions about the moral liceity, or even the physical and psychological consequences of homosexual behaviour. Have you noticed? The one thing no one in the argument seems to want to do is really to talk about what we’re talking about. In the case of the Catholic Church , this has become a nearly universal policy, from the CDF on down. We have been informed that it was official. When the issue started gaining speed, bishops and national conferences told priests they were to talk exclusively about the glories and wonders of marriage, and never, e