Queer Uber Alles

My, but Chai Feldblum is a....colorful critter:

I recall a poor fool on the old CompuServe political forums who was similarly retrogradedly whacked.  He used to argue not just that homosexuality was a "moral good," but that government should ESTABLISH homosexuality as "normal" AND BAN HETEROSEXUALITY OUTRIGHT.  He never got around to how he planned on enforcing this madness, to say nothing of how the species would continue to be propagated.  Heck, the populations of the "post-Christian" West (plus Japan and Russia) are steadily declining over time as it is.  This ultimate triumph of lavender power would be tantamount to politically-correct self-genocide.

In taking square aim at religious liberty, Feldblum is more subtle about it, but her viewpoint sounds little different.

And now that she has political power to wield, that viewpoint will enjoy a [AHEM] loftily privileged position:

To Feldblum the emerging conflicts between free exercise of religion and sexual liberty are real: “When we pass a law that says you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians.” Most of the time, the need to protect the dignity of gay people will justify burdening religious belief, she argues. But that does not make it right to pretend these burdens do not exist in the first place, or that the religious people the law is burdening don’t matter.

“You have to stop, think, and justify the burden each time,” says Feldblum. She pauses. “Respect doesn’t mean that the religious person should prevail in the right to discriminate–it just means demonstrating a respectful awareness of the religious position.”

Feldblum believes this sincerely and with passion, and clearly (as she reminds me) against the vast majority of opinion of her own community. And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

She pauses over cases like the one at Tufts University, one of many current legal battles in which a Christian group is fighting for the right to limit its leaders to people who subscribe to its particular vision of Christianity. She’s uncertain about Catholic Charities of Boston, too: “I do not know the details of that case,” she told me. “I do believe a state should be permitted to withhold tax exempt status, as in the Bob Jones case, from a group that is clearly contrary to the state’s policy. But to go further and say to a group that it is not permitted to engage in a particular type of work, such as adoptions, unless it also does adoptions for gay couples, that’s a heavier hand from the state. And I would hope we could have a dialogue about this and not just accusations of bad faith from either side.”

But the bottom line for Feldblum is: “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

It ain't an "alternative moral assessment," sweetheart.  It's the ordained moral AND natural law of the universe.

Having said that, you may be astonished to learn that I've worked amicably with at least one homosexual that I know of.  There may have been more, perhaps many more; if so, they didn't, shall we say, shove it in my face.  Which is just fine with me, and in fact, how it should be.  In the same way, it would frankly never occur to me to inquire of a job applicant if they're a pole-smoker or carpet-muncher, unless (1) the job in question that I was looking to fill involved working with children and (2) the applicant was [AHEM] not subtle about their proclivities.

In-face-shoving is where Feldblum's "dignity of gay people" code phrase becomes operative.  It's not enough for her kind to simply function in society at large and leave what goes on in their bedrooms in their bedrooms.  That would be, er, adult and reasonable.  Instead the inferiorty complex borne of their deep-seeded, even subconscious knowledge that the "orientation" they've chosen is grievously wrong compels them to DEMAND that the moral/religious values of society at large be suppressed for the sake of their sensitivities and forcibly supplanted with an official endorsement that goes way, way beyond "tolerence".  It's little short of a government-imposed "civil rights" free ride for "LGBT people" that tramples all over the rights and consciences of those who disagree.

Or, to be less subtle about it, Christian evangelicals:

Thus, for all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe the “zero sum” nature of the game inevitably comes into play. And, in making the decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.

So much for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."  Sounds like a "gay" police state to me.

Explain to me again how Red Barry is "practicing Christianity" again?  Yes, Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either."  But what about, "Go from now on and sin no more"?