The recent Supreme Court decision announcing that same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right is now viewed in many cases as an imprimatur over all aspects of homosexual demands on the rest of society. If a same-sex couple wishes to marry, the press and many left wing pundits now view this as having the right to demand of every citizen to do exactly what they're told to do by every same-sex couple that walks in the door, regardless of the religious strictures that may have created resistance to participation, even marginally, in a same-sex wedding event.
Of course the actual decision doesn't say any such thing. It says the two boys or two girls can marry each other because they have the same right to marry a boy or a girl of their choice as any heterosexual citizen who meets all existing legal requirements, such as minimum age for consent, not being already married to someone else, and so on.
Sounds pretty straightforward, doesn't it?
But new demands spring up like weeds in a garden. No one knows where these weeds come from, no one seems to know how they're related to the right to get married, but they leap up out of the ground and grow much faster than any flower you could ever plant.
Look at hiring a taxicab to see an example. Suppose you flag a cabbie down, jump in the back seat and say - "Take me to Times Square". That doesn't sound too outrageous does it? But just further suppose that the passenger in the back seat (who wants that cabbie to drive him to Times Square) just happens to be in Phoenix, Arizona. Do they have a constitutional right to be driven cross country in some person’s cab? Or does the cabbie have a right to say no I'm not driving you to New York?
The cabbie is not planning to drive for 36 or 48 hours to deliver the passenger to downtown Manhattan, and then drive that same number of hours before they return home. Does the passenger’s right to be driven to the East Coast trump the driver’s right to drive a limited number of hours per day? The driver has a family and a home to sleep in at no additional cost, but if the passenger’s right is more powerful than the driver’s right, how do you square that with the Constitution?
That may seem like a ridiculous example. Of course it does! It was intended to be at least as outrageous and ludicrous as the idea that gay people are being denied a right that everyone else in the nation enjoys. Apparently these newly discovered "rights" end up endlessly expanding.
If a baker, for religious reasons, would prefer not to participate in any non-religious marriage, what law says "Sorry! I'm afraid you are required by law, regardless of your beliefs, regardless of your religion and regardless of your preferences, to do everything possible to make every couple happy". Yet that is exactly what faces everyone, not just bakers. At what point do priests, ministers, rabbis and imams become required by law to marry anyone regardless of their religious preferences? At what point can the current opinion of the Supreme Court be overturned by common decency.
If a gay couple happens to be devout nudists, is St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City required under these new laws to pronounce a naked couple “man and man” or “woman and woman” or “man and husband” (or whatever the current P.C. label for such a couple might be)? I have to ask “At what point do we draw a line and just say this is insane?” Unfortunately that actually might become the case. When extreme left wingers proclaim that the Freedom of Religion that is mentioned in the First Amendment really doesn’t mean that you can worship God in the manner that God himself decreed, they are in reality claiming that the Supreme Court of the United States has the power and authority to overturn the words of the Lord himself.
The expansion of these rights is because of the same behaviors that are exhibited by bullies. Bullies push and if they win whatever it is that they are after, they push some more. Political bullies push for new “rights.” If they win, then their demands for even more (never before seen) “rights” grow and grow and grow.
However, it should always be remembered that there is one weapon available to everyone -- mockery.
Freedom of speech nearly always trumps freedom of stupidity.
The extension of the most recent Supreme Court case regarding gay marriage when applied to nudist couples clearly shows there is unrestrained freedom of stupidity. On the other hand freedom of speech couched in humorous terms as is most mockery, is the most protected right of heterosexuals. And nobody, gay or straight, wants to be considered stupid. That's largely because most people don't consider themselves stupid regardless of how stupid they actually might be.
So unless the Supremes declare that their decision is limited to only the constitutional right of the couple to be married to be their gender choice, they would also have to require that ministers of any and all religions violate their own consciences in order to marry two people who apparently don't have one themselves.
Could two nudist get married? Of course they could. They might not be able today to get married in the church or mosque or synagogue, but if they can get someone who is legally authorized to perform a wedding ceremony while wearing nothing but a clerical collar and is also willing to drive to a nudist camp to perform the ceremony, then we have a pair of happy campers. On the other hand, to demand that the local minister, who is perhaps a gentleman of significant age, will probably be unwilling to become involved in such a wedding if he has to perform the ceremony au naturel.
I'd be interested in seeing exactly how John Roberts plans on phrasing that particular decision forcing this local minister to perform the ceremony bare-assed.
A ludicrous example? Of course it is. That's the whole point of mockery. We have social media that makes spreading mockery around the world nearly instantaneous. And as the late George Carlin pointed out:
I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
All I could add to Carlin’s gem is the phrase: “Again, and again and again.”
Imagine, for those few truly religious Americans who own and operate bakeries that create wedding cakes, how they might advise potential clients that they function in accord with the Supreme Court’s ruling this way. They might put up a sign in their window that announces something like:
Yes, We Create Wedding Cakes for Perverts
Such a sign would be, to use an old phrase, as “legal as church on Sunday”, no matter how offensive it might be to members of the gay gestapo. But it might also discourage more than a few same-sex couples from seeking to employ that particular baker.
And if those who continually demand “rights” that never existed before become the butt of jokes, or even just generally tasteless comments, well, things are just tough all over. After all, they’re not in college anymore, so they probably can’t claim to be “precious, little snowflakes” anymore, can they?
