One of the big lies issued by the 2015 Supreme Court recognition of same-sex "marriage" is the following statement from the majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy:
The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. (Obergefell v. Hodges, IV)
Since the court's 5-4 ruling, we have seen multiple cases violating Justice Kennedy's "assurance." We have seen a county clerk imprisoned for refusing to issue gay "marriage" licenses despite conscious laws and the wide availability of licenses all over the state. A multitude of other cases include numerous lawsuits against bakers, photographers, caterers and more to compel them into labor for specific gay "marriage" ceremonies. Even a Catholic cemetery has faced legal issues for not submitting to the Obergefell plaintiffs' demands.
Recently, another devious maneuver occurred during the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
Barrett's public history should be noted. Big media and leftist politicians have made much of Barrett's Catholicism—specifically, the Catholicism of one who is not known to trample Catholic teaching as many "Catholic" politicians or even clergy have. Thus, when convenient, the narrative attempts to convey that being truly Catholic somehow disqualifies one of judicial competence whereas someone irreligious is supposedly immune to biases. Now, I am not familiar enough with Barrett to know how much she adheres to Catholic teaching, but, for the purposes of this article, it is enough that her opponents perceive her as a traditional Catholic.
When Barrett was nominated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, Senator Diane Feinstein famously opined:
"Whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country."
This attitude is consistent in the trajectory of anti-Catholic and anti-traditional discrimination from before Obergefell to the current acceleration.
Yesterday, activists of gay "marriage" ideology took another dishonest step. During Barrett's confirmation hearing, she used the phrase "sexual preference" to refer to persons of homosexual attraction. Known for other anti-Catholic opinions, Senator Mazie Hirono scolded the nominee, claiming the term was "offensive and outdated"—an attitude, incidentally, true to the 21st century's toddler-esque immaturity and obsession with what is "offensive."
So, how "outdated" is the term "preference" when referring to homosexual attraction? When did the term fall out of form?
Yesterday.
That's right. One day ago. Observant Twitter users noticed that Webster's dictionary altered the definition of the word "preference" as "offensive" when Amy Coney Barrett used the term in the context of sexual attraction. The English language was retconned to accommodate a leftist accusation, to ex post facto paint Barrett as some sort of bigot.
As recently as last month, Webster’s Dictionary included a definition of “preference” as “orientation” or “sexual preference.” TODAY they changed it and added the word “offensive."
— Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) October 14, 2020
Insane - I just checked through Wayback Machine and it’s real.
(via @ThorSvensonn & @chadfelixg) pic.twitter.com/oOq1SNtCP2
Other Twitter users noted how homosexuality-focused publications such as The Advocate and Pink News used the phrase "sexual preference" in the same sense in their publications as recently as three weeks ago.
Webster's live manipulation of language is Orwellian, devious, and dishonest. And, so is the fake outrage of Senators such as Hirono who suddenly claim offense at this term once used by a Catholic primed to be in a position of judicial authority. The language manipulation is simply a lie. Such lies are the devil's offspring. And this has been the hallmark of Justice Kennedy's promise of "proper protection" to those who recognize male-female marriage. Even the Barrett "preference" incident came up in the context of a question about Obergefell. This all fit the same pattern: No one is to question homosexual activism's narrative.
And now, those who seek to persecute Catholics and traditionalists have announced that they are not beyond changing the definition of a word in the dictionary to persecute you. This is dystopian, something you would expect of a one-dimensional movie villain. This is a perverse version of the Emperor Has No Clothes and no one is supposed to notice the lie in front of them.
The trajectory of villainy against Catholics and traditionalists will only get worst unless there is something to alter the current course.
No comments:
Post a Comment