GAY TRUTH

States were warned that they could lose federal funding if they required transgender people to use bathrooms corresponding to their biological sex. Ten states including Nebraska, Michigan and Ohio sued the Obama administration on Friday, saying the federal government does not have the power to tell states that transgender people must be allowed to use public bathrooms that conform with their gender identity. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, takes issue with a May 13 letter sent by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education to states warning them that they could lose federal funding if they required transgender people to use bathrooms corresponding to their biological sex. The lawsuit says the Obama administration’s move was an attempt to rewrite federal civil rights laws that do not apply to transgender people. It was filed by the attorneys general of the 10 states, which also include Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota

We have discussed gay marriage in terms of theology and morality.  Now let us consider it in political terms.   What kind of government is it that takes to Image via Wikipedia  itself the power and the authority to make such a radical change in the institution of marriage ?   George Weigel makes the connection between gay marriage and totalitarianism: As analysts running the gamut from Hannah Arendt to Leszek Kolakowski understood, modern totalitarian systems were, at bottom, attempts to remake reality by redefining reality and remaking human beings in the process. Coercive state power was essential to this process, because reality doesn’t yield easily to remaking, and neither do people. In the lands Communism tried to remake, the human instinct for justice — justice that is rooted in reality rather than ephemeral opinion — was too strong to change the way tastemakers change fashions in the arts. Men and women had to be coerced into accepting, however sullenly, the Communist New

There is a “cognitive dissonance” between ingrained “habits of homophobia” in Australian culture , on the one hand, and a recognition that “overt bigotry is Image via CrunchBase  no longer acceptable in the public square,” on the other. Some seek to resolve this dissonance by holding fast to their homophobic prejudices, by drawing similarities between the re-definition of marriage and the kind of human engineering attempted by totalitarian states . Others see this simply as virulent homophobic rhetoric gone mad. Image via Wikipedia Yet crying “homophobia” is a cheap calumny, a crypto-totalitarian bully’s smear that impresses no serious person. So, what was marriage like under totalitarianism? Under Polish Communism, Catholic couples — which is to say, just about everyone — got “married” twice. Because marriages in the Catholic Church were not recognized by the Communist state , believers had two “weddings.” The first was a civil procedure, carried out in dingy bureaucratic off

Image via Wikipedia There is a “cognitive dissonance” between ingrained “habits of homophobia” in Australian culture , on the one hand, and a recognition that “overt bigotry is no longer acceptable in the public square,” on the other. Some seek to resolve this dissonance by holding fast to their homophobic prejudices, by drawing similarities between the re-definition of marriage and the kind of human engineering attempted by totalitarian states . Others see this as virulent homophobic rhetoric. Yet crying “homophobia” is a cheap calumny, a crypto-totalitarian bully’s smear that impresses no serious person. What was marriage like under totalitarianism? Under Polish Communism, Catholic couples — which is to say, just about everyone — got “married” twice. Because marriages in the Catholic Church were not recognized by the Communist state , believers had two “weddings.” The first was a civil procedure, carried out in a dingy bureaucratic office with a state (Communist-party) apparat

Image via Wikipedia T he  Washington Post ’s culture critic, Philip Kennicott, recently took to the pages of his paper to note the “cognitive dissonance” between ingrained “habits of homophobia” in American culture, on the one hand, and a recognition that “overt bigotry is no longer acceptable in the public square,” on the other. As an example of those who resolve this dissonance by holding fast to their homophobic prejudices, Kennicott cited Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York , who had remarked on the similarities between the Empire State’s recent re-definition of marriage and the kind of human engineering attempted by totalitarian states; NRO’s Kathryn Jean Lopez and I came into Mr. Kennicott’s line of fire for displaying similarly “virulent homophobic rhetoric” in articles defending Archbishop Dolan’s suggestion that, in the marriage debate, the totalitarian temptation was very much in play. Philip Kennicott’s line of attack nicely demonstrates the truth of Oscar Wilde’s fam

Image via Wikipedia No Homophobia  - ...crying “ homophobia ” is a cheap calumny , a crypto- totalitarian bully’s smear that impresses no serious person…the net effect of the pressures now being mounted by the Times and others — a redefinition of “ marriage ” that puts Christian communities and their pastors outside the boundaries of the law for purposes of marriage — will be to reduce state-recognized “marriage” to a sad joke.  As analysts running the gamut from Hannah Arendt to Leszek Kolakowski understood, modern totalitarian systems were, at bottom, attempts to remake reality by redefining reality and remaking human beings in the process.  Coercive state power was essential to this process, because reality doesn’t yield easily to remaking, and neither do people. Related articles Gay marriage & totalitarianism (geneveith.com) No Homophobia (nationalreview.com) How to Confront Prejudice, Racism, Sexism and Homophobia (socyberty.com) On Traditional Marriage: Whe