Who Are the Real Bigots on Gay Marriage?
Justice Anthony Kennedy did the cause of gay marriage no favors when he ruled that the purpose of laws that uphold traditional marriage was to "disparage and injure" same-sex couples. By casting support for traditional marriage falsely as bigotry, he undermined the legitimacy of the holding in the case. Worse, he implictly excused the real--not imagined--bigotry of some gay marriage supporters against their opponents.
When the majority of California voters passed Proposition 8, upholding traditional marriage, gay marriage supporters went on a rampage against Mormons, who were scapegoated for the referendum. Angry protests were organized outside Mormon churches, and some were vandalized with ugly graffiti, as Mormons in general were subjected to an aggressive barrage of religious bigotry in the media and popular culture.Just last year, the Chick-Fil-A restaurant chain was targeted with a campaign of boycotts because of its owners' support for traditional marriage. Supporters of traditional marriage--and free speech--flocked to the restaurants to defend them, but the campaign has continued: a Chick-Fil-A restaurant in San Antonio was vandalized with gay marriage signs in the week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case.
Political leaders have not only defended but championed the bigotry against traditional marriage supporters, who are the one group it is still permissible to hate in American society. The White House has supported something called the "NO H8" campaign, run by "anti-bullying" activist Dan Savage--who is notorious for bullying Christians, including Christian students at a high school journalism conference.
The campaign against supporters of traditional marriage has been as relentless as it is hateful. Even when traditional marriage supporters win the argument, as they did in Proposition 8, they are not permitted to win the policy debate. They are subject to abuse at their homes and places of work; they are mocked by politicians, journalists, and entertainers; they are publicly humiliated when they are sincere in their views.
There are, to be sure, anti-gay bigots in America, such as the cultish members of the Westboro Baptist Church. But the movement for traditional marriage has nothing to do with them. It is, for the most part, made up of tolerant people who but wish to uphold a time-honored--and, yes, religiously-sanctioned institution. They are the victims, not the perpetrators, of bigotry--a point the dissent should have raised and emphasized.
Image credit: Patheos
Las cosas costarán más gracias al plan de Obama sobre el cambio climático
El presidente Obama dice que no “tiene tiempo para asistir a una reunión con [lo que él denomina] la Sociedad de la Tierra es Plana”. Y si Ud. no está de acuerdo con el presidente y su devastador enfoque regulador sobre el cambio climático, probablemente a Ud. también lo clasificarán como miembro de esa sociedad.
El gran problema de todo esto es que las normativas que defiende en realidad no ayudarían al planeta.
Antes del discurso, el analista de la Fundación Heritage Nicolas Loris (investigador adscrito a la donación Herbert y Joyce Morgan) explicó el dilema del presidente:
Pero supongamos que somos capaces de dejar de emitir dióxido de carbono inmediatamente. Olvidémonos de la electricidad para refrigerar nuestros hogares en los meses de verano. Cerremos las centrales eléctricas. Dejemos de manejar nuestros autos. Ni hablar. El Instituto de Ciencia y Política Pública halló que la temperatura del planeta disminuiría 0.17º C para el año 2100. Implementar estas regulaciones sería sufrir para nada.Eso es lo que el plan del presidente Obama para el cambio climático no haría.
Y esto es lo que el plan del presidente Obama para el cambio climático haría: aumentar el precio prácticamente todo.
Ya sea regulando los electrodomésticos o eliminando el carbón como fuente de energía nacional, el plan de Obama tendría el mismo efecto: aumentar el costo de la vida.
· Calentar y refrigerar su hogar
· Comprar un auto y manejarlo, desde su desplazamiento al trabajo al entrenamiento de fútbol y a cualquier sitio entre medias al que vaya.
· Encender las luces
· Lavar y secar la ropa
Pero eso no es todo. Piense a una escala mayor incluso. ¿Qué implicaciones tendrá para la guerra del presidente Obama contra el carbón el subir los precios del gas natural en un 42%?
Seguramente Ud. tendrá una caldera o un horno de gas. Pero el gas natural está haciendo que funcionen muchas más cosas, como explican los analistas de la Fundación Heritage Nicolas Loris, David Kreutzer y Kevin Dayaratna:
El gas natural no es sólo una fuente vital de generación eléctrica; el gas natural y otros gases extraídos del gas natural proporcionan la base para producir fertilizantes, productos químicos y farmacéuticos, el tratamiento de residuos, el procesado de alimentos, alimentar las calderas industriales y mucho más.Por tanto, desde el procesado de alimentos hasta el tratamiento de residuos, ¡todo el ciclo de la vida será más costoso!
Y por supuesto, tampoco ayudará el que Ud. tenga menos ingresos. La investigación de estos expertos de la Fundación Heritage, que será publicada próximamente, muestra cómo las normativas anticarbón de Obama provocarán que una familia de cuatro miembros pierda más de $1,400 de sus ingresos anuales.
IRS auditor reaffirms that conservatives, not liberals, were targete
The Washington Times
J. Russell George is the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration. .
The IRS‘ auditor told Congress
this week that it stands by its determination that conservative groups
were uniquely singled out for special scrutiny by the tax agency,
rebutting Democrats’ contention that liberal groups also were targeted.
The Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) sent a letter Wednesday to congressional Democrats telling them that while several liberal groups may have gotten extra scrutiny, the IRS didn’t necessarily target those — but it did do so for conservative groups.
“TIGTA concluded that inappropriate criteria were used to identify potential political cases for extra scrutiny — specifically, the criteria listed in our audit report. From our audit work, we did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled “Progressives,” were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 timeframe we audited,” Inspector General J. Russell George said.
He said that while 30 percent of groups that had the word “progressive” in their name were given extra scrutiny, 100 percent of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their names were pulled out for strict scrutiny, which involved what the IRS since has said were invasive and inappropriate questions.
Democrats have argued that the IRS‘ scrutiny of applications
for tax-exempt status hit both ideological sides equally, which would
cut at the GOP’s argument that it was politically motivated. Instead,
Democrats have said the scrutiny is the natural result of a jump in
applications after campaign finance rules changed following the Supreme
Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case.
But Mr. George’s letter suggests that’s not the case.
“While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of tea party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” Mr. George wrote.
The Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) sent a letter Wednesday to congressional Democrats telling them that while several liberal groups may have gotten extra scrutiny, the IRS didn’t necessarily target those — but it did do so for conservative groups.
“TIGTA concluded that inappropriate criteria were used to identify potential political cases for extra scrutiny — specifically, the criteria listed in our audit report. From our audit work, we did not find evidence that the criteria you identified, labeled “Progressives,” were used by the IRS to select potential political cases during the 2010 to 2012 timeframe we audited,” Inspector General J. Russell George said.
He said that while 30 percent of groups that had the word “progressive” in their name were given extra scrutiny, 100 percent of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their names were pulled out for strict scrutiny, which involved what the IRS since has said were invasive and inappropriate questions.
Democrats have argued that the IRS‘ scrutiny of applications
for tax-exempt status hit both ideological sides equally, which would
cut at the GOP’s argument that it was politically motivated. Instead,
Democrats have said the scrutiny is the natural result of a jump in
applications after campaign finance rules changed following the Supreme
Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case.But Mr. George’s letter suggests that’s not the case.
“While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of tea party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails, and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” Mr. George wrote.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/27/irs-auditor-reaffirms-conservatives-not-liberals-w/#ixzz2XQW1Tv25
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario