I have always said: "If gay marriage is approved by the Supremes, opposition speech will become illegal." Well, 7 1/2 hours after the announcement, BAM !!

Newspaper editorial page bans op-eds opposing gay marriage...

This is exactly what Justic Scalia meant when he warned that this decision is a threat to democracy. 

The Supreme Court just institutionalized gay marriage nation-wide . . . . . a 5 - 4 decision for those who want to sleep with their friends.

As long as they do not criminalize my opposition speech to this decision and this practice,  I am "fine" with this decision.  Anyone believe that the radical libs in this "movement" will not work tirelessly to criminalize free,  opposition speech?    That is the next battle.  

Just to be clear,  when I say I am fine with this practice,  understand that I am talking about who you live with and how much perversion you can practice,  on a personal level.  You have that right,  and it was yours before this decision, today.  

This decision does not redefine "marriage."  Instead,  it is the legal basis for the destruction of "marriage" as a legal and social construct.  If a man can marry another man,  he can marry his dog   . . . . . . .    and absolutely no one reading this can push forward an argument to the contrary.  

I am not saying that "marriage to your dog" is the next frontier.  Rather,  I am saying that this is the end of "marriage."  If a "man and woman" is not the standard,  there is no single and undeniable standard at all.    Because no one can argue against any particular  form of marriage,  "marriage" will eventually have no definition at all and those who speak out against this,  will spend time in jail.  

50 years from now,  marriage (a man to a woman) will be no more.  

Update:  Look,  forget the "dog" illustration.  The official definition of marriage was "one man at time to one woman at a time,"  ruling out marriage to a dog,  another same sex friend or "one man and three or four for 15 woman."  If there is a future battle to be waged in this venue,  it will have to do with polygamy.  

A second real possibility,  may be the legal age for marriage and whether a man can marry a six year old.  

There are no legal arguments against any of this if the biblical standard is not the standard.  As a result,  our children,  raised in such a permissive environment,  will become dumber and dumber,  less loyal to anything issue considered to be sacrosanct.  and more wedded to "good times and rock and roll" than ever before.  

Update #2:   I told you so.  Trust me;  this decision is the end of "marriage."  Every loser on Earth will want to establish his own definition,  and there is no legal argument against any.  

Fredrik deBoer / Politico:

It's time to legalize polygamy  —  Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.  —  Getty.  —  Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope.  With the Supreme Court's landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals.

+

Discussion: NBC News, Hot Air, Mediaite and Bloomberg Business

Why I will not vote for Christie should he be the GOP choice in 2016.

In a story carried by NewsMax,  we have this: 

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who has opposed same-sex marriage, said that gay people are born that way and it is not a sin.

The statement was released as he signed a bill banning therapy that tries to change a minor's sexual orientation. Christie said such efforts pose "critical health risks including, but not limited to, depression, substance abuse, social withdrawal, decreased self-esteem and suicidal thoughts.”

Editor’s notes: Clearly,  Christie’s reversal on gay marriage is every bit as political as was Obama’s,  proving that in Gov Christie,  we have a politician,  not a leader.  

More than this and acting as if he were God,  his pronouncement on “sin” is both laughable and ignorant.  While there may be a proclivity for same sex attraction in two or three percent of the population,  there is nothing in the human psyche that demands sexual pursuit,  whether the individual is deemed “heterosexual” or “homosexual.” 

This editor  (that would be me), cares little,  however,  as to what or with whom one has sex,  just as long as my right to publicly object is protected  . . . . . .   which is not the agenda of the pro-gay, Leftist,  lobby.  They are not content with passing a same sex marriage law.  Rather,  it is their intent to indoctrinate our children (proselytize is another more exacting term for “indoctrinate”)  and criminalize speech that disagrees with their over-all agenda,  whether that be same sex sex,  the junk science known as "global warming,"  the end of international borders, military surrender to the bullies of the world in the name of “global peace,”  the extinction of any traditional form of “God,”  and/or the annihilation of conservative politics,  in general. 

Christie is,  obviously,  becoming entrenched in this leftist agenda and will never be “president,”  if that means running for that office as a Republican.  His willingness to kiss up to Obama days before the 2012 presidential election,  knowing full well that this demonstration of affection would cost Romney votes, is a measure of the man who,  now,  reverses himself on same sex marriage and pretends to speak with authority as to the subject of “sin.” 

We already have a Messiah in Obama.  We don’t need a double dose  (pardon the pun) in Chris Christie.  

I have preached this for years: The problem with allowing "gay marriage" is the end game of criminalizing anti-homo speech. Now it has happened and in the State of Texas, no less !!

OneNewsNow:     The San Antonio City Council is doing some housecleaning to combine all of its anti-discrimination rules and ordinances into one. The consolidated ordinance states a desire to adopt a “comprehensive and expanded non-discrimination policy with revisions to outdated terminology.”

According to Pastor Charles Flowers of Faith Outreach International, the city leaders want to add two categories to the policy: sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The ordinance also says that if you have at any point demonstrated a bias – without defining what a bias is or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised – that you cannot get a city contract,” he tells OneNewsNow. “Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract.”

Moreover, according to a draft of the revised policy, no one who has spoken out against homosexuality or the transgender lifestyle can run for city council or be appointed to a board. Flowers says the Arizona-based legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom has taken a look at the ordinance.

“They said they’ve never seen this kind of language in any other ordinance in any other city that they’ve dealt with,”the pastor shares. “It is unprecedentedly wrong – and of course the citizens of San Antonio must stop it.”

Flowers maintains the ordinance violates state and federal constitutions in terms of freedom of speech and religion. He is inviting people throughout the U.S. to call the members of the San Antonio City Council to politely voice their opposition.

24 hours after making the "big announcement," Obama back-tracks a bit. Apparently, his version of "bi-partisanship" is a thing called "plausible deniability.

<<<<< Saul Alinsky, king of plausible deniability -  is he to blame for Obama's ho mo sexual confliction?  


Post note:  Obama calls his decision to honor gay marriage an "evolution of position."  How can that be when he ran on a gay-marriage platform in 1996,  seeking office in his Illinois campaign for State Senator?  


Wednesday,  the gay world was all aflutter. Some even mentioned that the "thrill was back."  Today is a different story.  Obama has made another announcement, this time in avoidance of the lime light.   I found it in the Washington Examiner.  Turns out that Obama will not seek a gay-marriage amendment to the Democrat platform.  Being the coward that he is,  Obama has decided to wait on the Democrat Party, itself.  It seems as though its members are working on a gay-marriage platform as I publish.  The real news in all this is the fact that there is not a gay-marriage platform.  I mean,  who knew ??

For the sake of this post,  the effect of Obama's most recent epiphany will not result in Party changes to the campaign if it is left up to Obama's leadership.  More "leading from behind,"  no ??  Others will make the "necessary changes,"  leaving Obama alone to work his magic using both sides of this mouth.

Adding to his puzzling confliction on this matter,  is the Examiner's declaration:

President Obama declared his personal support for same-sex marriage yesterday, but the White House chose not to push for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act today.

It cannot be a secret that Obama has instructed Eric Holder not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act,  passed under Bill Clinton.  Understand that if you are the single most important law enforcement combine in the nation,  Obama/Holder really does not need Constitutional repeal when it has decided to ignore the law, altogether, on this matter.

At any rate,  with Obama,  this declaration simply could not been a straightforward affair, could it?    He has to complicate the matter,  always looking for plausible deniability. just in case something he says works against him.

In the end and a day after his move out of the closet, the effect of Obama's announcement has taken the discussion [nearly] back to "ground zero."  If you are a conservative,  understand that the part of the media that is ecstatic about this latest Obama drama, was in the Obama camp, anyway.  I really do not think this two day bit of rhetorical nonsense has advanced his candidacy at all.  In fact,  if anything,  it has hurt.
_________________________________

End notes and related articles: 


My headline explanation:  another phrase for "plausible deniability" is the more vulgar phrase, "talking out of both sides of one's mouth."  With Obama,  the headline implies an effort on the part of the Slickster to "save" as many votes on the Left and the Right as possible, while taking a singular "stand" for gay-marriage.

Plausible deniability as a first consideration in defining strategies. 

Plausible deniability: Obama’s hands were allover Solyndra

Showdown Over Iran  - an article dealing with the U.S. and Obama's need for plausible deniability. 

In a recent article in the Leftist, Daily Kos,  the argument is made that now is the time to attack the Supreme Count; its various decisions under Roberts giving the Democrats plausible deniability.  Read the article for yourself.