Dear friend I know that someone who cited the Southern Poverty Law Center and other numerous “studies” is merely feigning ignorance of what the “gay lobby” is. But in an effort to humor you I will attach the following link that tells of the billionaire owners of amazon.com putting forth $2.3 million to help push through a pro same-sex “marriage” referendum.
These billionaires would be considered part of the “gay lobby”. The ACLU would also be considered part of this lobby. Many producers, directors and actors in Hollywood would be considered part of this lobby. Basically anyone who puts their clout behind the normalization of homosexuality would be considered part of the “gay lobby”.
Granted many of these efforts described above could conceivably be considered part of the Democratic process. I would argue that they are demonstrative of rich elites subverting the political process at the cost of the majority of Americans who oppose same-sex “marriage”.
Nonetheless, when laws are enacted to suppress freedom of speech on these issues and further when said laws essentially criminalize or civilly sanction individuals who speak opposition to same-sex marriage then we ALL have a problem. This is what is going on and what is being promoted by the “gay lobby” (i.e. disproportionately influential same-sex marriage supporters). I will link a number of the instances of these suppressive laws and lawsuits below:
https://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/home/detail/8982 (florist being sued and facing heavy sanctions for not providing flowers for same-sex “wedding”)
http://blog.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/2014/10/20/two-ministers-ordered-to-perform-same-sex-wedding-face-jail-fines/ (the http address says what this one is about)
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/marquette-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage-can-be-a-form-of-harassment/ (New federal law that makes private workplace discussion about disagreement with same-sex marriage between colleagues a federal offense that could cost you your job. The law makes a non-malicious discussion a federal offense and training program regarding this law teaches employees that freedom of speech essentially does not apply and will not be honored. The employer in this case also provides incentives for reporting non-discriminatory speech to the employer).
I could go on with more cites/sites but you get the point Hector.
I think as Lisakaiser said in a previous post (and I am paraphrasing) “you have the freedom to worship but as soon as you start discriminating against gays in the public sphere then it’s a problem.”
Well I will tell you Hector that the attitudes expressed in the links above and also by Lisa are promoting and putting into effect laws that infringe on the exercise of religious freedom and freedom of speech. So this is what the “gay lobby” is doing to the Roman Catholic Church, and if I might add ALL AMERICANS who oppose same-sex “marriage”.
Furthermore, opposition to same-sex “marriage” is not discrimination and exercising that opposition with non-hateful speech and/or Democratic activity is not discrimination. What these laws and your attitudes are doing is denying the right of all persons to exercise their Democratic rights. Furthermore, it tells religious people that their consciences (which are formed in part in Church) cannot be expressed via the Democratic process. State sanctioning (which is what this all is) is essentially saying, as Lisa aptly points out, keep your morality inside of the Church or else you will be severely punished, called a bigot etc.
My friend what we have here is the blossoming of a totalitarian society that criminalizes perfectly legal behavior and dissent. And before you say that I am being paranoid or talking conspiracy theories - ask the Jews about the laws that essentially prohibited the expression of Judaism that were enacted in Germany before the genocide started to occur. Or ask the Christians and Jews in Russia about the restrictions that occurred before and during the times when they were shipped to Siberia to work (and die) in forced work camps simply because they were Jews or Christians.
God willing something so horrible will never happen in this country but we are continuously seeing the suppression of lawful dissent.
Now unless readers of this post say well that is nice but I just don’t see anything to be concerned about or how this affects me see the link below:
The title of the above linked law review article written by a proponent of the rights of persons with homosexual and/or bisexual tendencies is called “Sexual Liberty and Same-Sex Marriage: An Argument for Bisexuality.”
This article argues that in pushing for same-sex “marriage” the “gay lobby” (i.e. proponents of homosexuality etc.) sold out the “founding fathers” of the “gay movement” that began in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Basically the author says that on the heals of Lawrence v. Texas (a Supreme Court decision that stated “sexual liberty” is a fundamental right) the proponents of the “gay lifestyle” did not go far enough in pursuing their agenda. Instead they sold themselves short in going after legalizing same-sex “marriage.”
The author points out that the grand prize of “the movement” should be the abolishment of ALL MARRIAGE because inherently all marriage is discriminatory. This is because it limits the exercise of our “sexual liberties.” Using an analogy that the author uses (and I am paraphrasing) “true free sexual liberty is akin to being able to select whatever sexual proclivity you want from a great banquet table of sexual options”; and any State sponsorship of marriage (whether it be heterosexual or homosexual) denies people their “fundamental” sexual liberty. This is because by sponsoring marriage and not sponsoring other forms of sexual expression the State is inherently discriminating against the persons who prefer these other forms of sexual expression.
The author uses those who choose the bisexual lifestyle as his case-in-point. What options do they have? If they want marriage as it is currently setup they have to choose to marry one sex as opposed to the other. This would be a denial of their sexual liberty and hence ANY TYPE of marriage (heterosexual or supposed same-sex) is discriminatory.
What then is the solution? Abolish all marriage because according to the author “marriage is INHERENTLY discriminatory.” According to the author true “Constitutional freedom” would allow for everyone to choose from the banquet table of their sexual delights.
Hence, it is all about PERSONAL GRATIFICATION and using oneself and one’s partners as instruments of gratification NOT as sharers in LOVE AND SACRIFICE who are striving for a more perfect union with their spouse and God.
You can see what such arguments naturally lead to: if my “sexual liberty” is what fundamentally matters then if I am a pedophile, a bigamist, or even one who practices beastiality - the State should sponsor my freedom via its laws. Or at the very least the State should not uphold such a “discriminatory” thing as marriage. Hence, the State should legalize my behavior and abolish anything that infringes upon my “freedom.”
Hence the State should abolish marriage.
Furthermore, and it naturally follows, that the State should criminalize and/or suppress any opposition to my freedom of choice (which the State is already beginning to do).
I conclude by providing quotes from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s dissent in U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013)(the case where the majority opinion effectively by judicial fiat overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, a law which on its face WAS Constitutional):
“To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans [the Supreme Court] ... ...”
” ... In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over
something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.”
I have attached the link to this case:
In essence the Judges who overturned the Defense of Marriage Act said that we believe the law was intended to discriminate without there being any showing of discrimination (in fact the reasons for drafting the law WERE legitimate and had no discriminatory intent). Coming such a decision without adhering to such a basic legal tenet as having proof is the mark of a Judiciary that has overstepped its bounds and has imposed its will instead of honoring the will of the People.
This whole post clearly shows (1) that the Rule of Law is being quickly eroded in this country, and (2) voicing an opposite opinion will get you in trouble real quick and also get you labeled as a bigot.
One of the premier jurists in our country Justice Scalia points out the Court is saying if you don’t believe in our worldview, no matter how legitimate your reasons for opposition, you do not have a voice.
All of the above, my dear friend Hector, is what we mean by the “gay lobby.” And furthermore, it clearly demonstrates the risk to the Catholic Church and ALL Americans who believe that morality should be upheld and immorality should not be sponsored or forced upon us by the State. Likewise, it is why ALL Americans who care about Democracy and the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom to Dissent via valid Democratic means should be concerned.
I will pray for you and other persons like you Hector who do not understand what I have written, or who worse yet understand what I have written and who don’t care or think that what is going on is right.
God Bless you.