web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "gay marriage"

Darren Grimes: A Pride Day? There’s a good case for one. But a whole Pride Month? That’s just virtue signalling.

Darren Grimes is a political commentator and is content creator at Reasoned UK.

Last year marked half a century since the protest in retaliation against a threatening police raid at the Stonewall Inn in New York. It began a new era of defiance in the campaign to secure equal rights for gay men and women, playing a part in a global movement that eventually culminated in the legalisation of same-sex marriage.

So maybe a ‘Pride Month’ to mark the event last year was justifiable. But is an entire month necessary every year?

There are some good arguments to have a ‘Pride Day’ to celebrate and commemorate the UK’s achievements in overcoming the criminalisation of homosexuality and the lack of protections for trans men and women. And to help us stand in solidarity with people in other countries where it’s still illegal and life-threatening to be gay.

But to dedicate a whole month to this seems to debase the value of such well-intentioned acts, particularly when the month seems more grounded in virtue-signalling and the criticism of others than genuine feelings of celebration, commemoration and solidarity.

On Monday, the Conservative Party changed its profile picture across its social media channels, stripping the light blue oak tree logo, which until 2017 proudly boasted the Union Jack, and instead bedazzling it in the colours of the rainbow. The Party justifies this by arguing in a post on its website that: “Freedom lies at the heart of our Party’s values and we will always stand up for the rights of LGBT people to live and love without fear.”

I find it utterly depressing that the pride flag now takes pride of place in our national life over our own national flag. Our national flag is sneered at with Emily Thornberry levels of derision, but what, might I ask, could stand for the values of freedom and of the Conservative and Unionist Party better than the Union Jack? Our common flag, representing our common direction and identity – one that internationally boasts a pro-freedom message.

The Union Jack groups together all four constituent parts of the world’s most successful political and economic union a hell of a lot better than the artificial union of the ‘LGBT community’, which does not exist. Being gay is an incredibly unreliable characteristic on which to try and build an individual identity, never mind trying to group the four (and increasingly more) together as a so-called community. Yet still politicians speak of ‘LGBT Plus’, as though we’re one religious grouping that gather each week around some sacred text.

It isn’t just the Conservative Party splashing the cash on a rainbow update – the ‘woke capital’ commercialisation of it all is increasingly obvious, with it being very easy for big corporations to whack a pride flag everywhere – but being woke is an expensive business as far as government is concerned, too. According to the Taxpayers’ Alliance, Whitehall departments often abuse taxpayer cash in pursuit of appealing to identity politics.

Whitehall departments have spent more than £65,000 installing gender-neutral toilets, and purchasing LGBTQ lanyards, stationery and flags. The Cabinet Office and 10 Downing Street own four pride flags, compared to only three St. George’s flags: in a world in which identity is king, who cares about England’s national identity?

The cost per LGBT+ lanyard from the departments who responded ranged from £3.53 to £0.49. However, a plain lanyard costs from as little as £0.13. I wonder how much all of the diversity training and the social media videos for each department during ‘pride month’ will cost the taxpayer too?

In the end, was the Conservative Party thanked for its unabashed support of this entire month of pride at the altar of the rainbow mob? No, no. Of course not. Shortly after throwing the rainbow mob a bit of meat, ‘Section 28’ was trending on Twitter to bash the Party’s efforts. Deliberately ignoring David Cameron’s support of same-sex marriage, the final frontier in gay equality.

I hope that one positive outcome of our dalliance with a potentially fatal virus that has shuttered much of our economy and seen us all squirrel ourselves away indoors will be a rejection of the fake culture wars. In which arguments over gender neutral bathrooms and changing rooms are deemed less important than issues that are higher on the electorate’s agenda like debt, growth and jobs for the next generation.

After all, what ‘LGBT+’ battles are left to be fought? Same-sex marriage is secured and attitudes are catching up with it. And as trans woman Dr Debbie Hayton writes: “It’s true that trans rights are human rights, but those rights are already protected. It is illegal to harass me or treat me less favourably on the grounds of my gender reassignment – and rightly so.” So what battles are left that justify a Pride Month? Are we not free until we can walk around the streets in puppy fetish gear without raising eyebrows?

Saying all of this will see me attacked by UK’s legacy gay press such as Pink News. To argue that my sexuality does not define me and that I am not oppressed is an act of heresy – despite the fact that our sexuality is the least interesting thing about us. Indeed, the fight for gay liberation was in large part about recognising this. You didn’t choose to be gay, you didn’t achieve being gay – and society not caring about you being so is cause to celebrate.

A prominent case of being cancelled for holding such views was when the co-founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel, addressed the Republican National Convention in 2016 – hardly a crowd known historically for being A-OK with gay men and women.

Thiel told the Convention that: “I am proud to be gay. I am proud to be a Republican. But most of all, I am proud to be an American.” The crowd’s response? A standing ovation! This should have been seen as cause for celebration of the breakneck speed at which attitudes towards gay men and women have changed, but no, Thiel was instead denounced as “not a gay man” by The Advocate magazine

If the legacy gay press spent half as much time attacking the medieval practices of those who murder and hound gay men and women in countries around the world as they do those gay men and women that they disagree with in democracies like ours, who knows what they could achieve?

At the end of the day, being gay in 2020 is ok. We are no longer prime victims of oppression, and we should hold on to that and reject a month of self-indulgence and narcissism: these groups should be ignored in their attempts to find oppression where little exists. We don’t need a ‘Pride month’. We don’t need your taxpayer-funded lanyards and flags. Perhaps if Whitehall and our politicians could find as much pride in the Union Jack as they do in waving the Pride flag, Boris Johnson’s levelling-up agenda would be a much easier task.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Elizabeth Warren slams “old-fashioned” religion at CNN’s LGBTQ forum

Westlake Legal Group Elizabeth-Warren-2 Elizabeth Warren slams “old-fashioned” religion at CNN’s LGBTQ forum The Blog religion patriarchy LGBTQ gay marriage forum Elizabeth Warren CNN Chris Cuomo 2020 Democrat candidates

CNN held a forum for the single purpose of allowing the Democrat candidates running for the party’s presidential nomination to pander to the LGBTQ community. Elizabeth Warren was even able to score a twofer as she bashed people of faith and the patriarchy all in one answer.

Lest you think otherwise, the party of identity politics really doesn’t like conservatives. Or religious people. Or men, for that matter. When moderator Chris Cuomo called on Morgan Cox, chair of the Human Rights Campaign board of directors, to ask his question, Warren was really feeling her oats. His question: What if “a supporter approaches you and says, senator, I’m old-fashioned and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman. What is your response?”

Warren’s response was about as intolerant as one can get. She replied, “Well, I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that. And I’m going to say, then just marry one woman. I’m cool with that. Assuming you can find one.”

See, Mr. Cox is from Dallas and has a very soft southern accent. Elizabeth Warren went right for the stereotype of people in the South. Surely Cox must be referring to dumb white guys. Mind you, he didn’t specify if the supporter was male or female in the hypothetical question. She just assumed it was a man. So, in that one response, she slammed the patriarchy with “I going to assume it’s a guy…”

Does she think religious women would be more flexible than men in their religious beliefs? Feminists often make the mistake of expressing opinions that lessen the dignity of men in order to prop up women. It’s a wrong-headed approach to equality but it’s a common move. Her little dig at the end – “Assuming you can find one.” – implies the man must be a cretin unworthy of finding a mate.

The response is a disgusting pander all the way around. The audience loved it. A CNN reporter openly gushed over Warren on Twitter during her segment of the forum. I didn’t watch the forum because I was working and also because when I could, I switched over to the Astro-Rays baseball game, (My Astros advance to the ALCS!) but I saw a tweet of this question and answer. In the mind of the CNN reporter, this was “quite a moment”.

I don’t think her definition of moment is the same as mine. I saw it as a condescending, bigoted, insufferable response that Warren knew the audience wanted to hear. So I gave my own response.

This tweet sums the forum up nicely:

Will Warren’s campaign use this viral moment for fundraising purposes? You betcha.

Viral moments are coveted in the Democratic primary race, where they can serve as a magnet for online donations and bring much-needed attention to candidates struggling to stand out in a large field.

Ms. Warren’s answer appeared likely to turn into one of those moments, even though she is hardly struggling to attract attention to her campaign, having risen in the polls to rival former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as a leading contender for the Democratic nomination.

A video of her response at the forum immediately drew attention on Twitter, and the Warren campaign soon shared the moment on her feed as well.

Elizabeth Warren is a gift to Donald Trump. There is no position too far left for her and if she has to take down normal, everyday Americans along the way, so be it. She openly mocks people for their religious beliefs and her supporters applaud. Same sex marriage is the law of the land because that is how the Supreme Court ruled. A legal ruling, though, doesn’t automatically change the religious beliefs of millions of people. All religions address marriage. How far does Liz think she would get in a Muslim-majority country, for instance, with her intolerance of religious expression? No one in America is calling for the execution of LGBTQ people. All Warren had to say was that same sex marriage is the law of the land and she supports it. There was no need for the snark, she just did it to get the applause. She fights.

Tolerance is a one-way street for the leftists among us. The same goes for civility.

The post Elizabeth Warren slams “old-fashioned” religion at CNN’s LGBTQ forum appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Elizabeth-Warren-2-300x153 Elizabeth Warren slams “old-fashioned” religion at CNN’s LGBTQ forum The Blog religion patriarchy LGBTQ gay marriage forum Elizabeth Warren CNN Chris Cuomo 2020 Democrat candidates  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Jonathan Clark: Brexit. Is democracy at risk?

Jonathan Clark was a Fellow of Peterhouse; at Oxford, he was a Fellow of All Souls College; latterly he has been Visiting Professor at the Committee on Social Thought at Chicago, and Hall Distinguished Professor of British History at the University of Kansas. His latest book is a study of Thomas Paine.

Observers agree that this is the most impassioned episode in British politics for over a century. But it has been so under David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson alike. The last alone is not to blame. Why, then, is it so bitter? We ought to be able to debate whether GDP will be slightly higher or slightly lower in 15 years if we leave or if we remain in the EU without expulsions, mutual denunciations, threats, and lawfare. Other things are at stake, far beyond economists’ guesswork. At least two are at issue, for the Brexit crisis is at its heart a proxy war.

The first is democracy itself, for two conceptions of it are widely held in the UK, representative and direct. In 2019 they collide. What are they?

Representative democracy assumes that Parliament once seized sovereignty from the King, and the Commons then seized it from the Lords; or, alternatively, that if the People once had sovereignty, they surrendered it completely and for all time to members of the Commons, who, collectively, now have absolute authority. Being wise and restrained patricians, MPs rule in the national interest. This theory looks more unpersuasive the more one explores it.

Direct democracy assumes that sovereignty resides with autonomous individuals thanks to God’s gift or to Nature – thoughtful individuals who know all they need to know in order to govern, and who exercise their authority just as they please via universal suffrage. Again, this theory is not wholly plausible. Which of the two predominates is likely to depend on practice more than on theoretical argument.

Practice depends on logistics, and these continually develop. Representative democracy seemed obvious in days when communication was slow and expensive. Members of the Commons might visit their constituencies seldom. The franchise was restricted, newspapers reported little, the actions of most MPs at Westminster were seldom in the public eye. Members were unpaid, so normally had to be rich: they were seldom inclined to defer to the poor. But all that was long ago.

From the mid-1990s, and increasingly every year, the internet has transformed everything. For the first time, it is possible to conduct opinion polls in a shorter time than it takes MPs to file through the division lobbies. For the first time, I can watch my MP speak live in the Commons, or in a recording. I can monitor her every vote. I can email her almost instantaneously (I have even exchanged brief emails with one distinguished MP while he was in a debate). Thankfully, my MP is admirable, in her labours both in Parliament and in her constituency. But for voters who differ from their MPs, the potential for active involvement is far greater than ever before.

Kenneth Clarke speaks for the old school of Parliamentarians in insisting that the referendum of 2016 was merely advisory. But he is out of date. The European Union Referendum Act 2015, which made the arrangements, nowhere said that. Nor did the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. No legislation has ever provided that votes cast in general elections are merely advisory either. On the contrary, the electorate decides things.

We can only deduce the advisory status of referendums by implication, from the premise ‘Parliament is sovereign’. But no Act of Parliament can establish parliamentary sovereignty, any more than Kenneth Clarke can rise into the air by pulling on his shoelaces. Since the People elect members of the Commons directly, by binding votes, and of the Lords indirectly (via elected members of the Commons), it might plausibly be argued that the People are sovereign.

Yet representative democracy is widely championed, and here lies the second great point at issue: a culture war, over what might be called the recent hegemony of social democratic values. It was not so in 1962 when Anthony Sampson published his famous Anatomy of Britain; it shaped the subsequent understandings of ‘The Establishment’ as a closed social circle of the public school and Oxbridge educated who staffed the boardrooms, Parliament, the judiciary and the church.

But a wind of change has swept over Britain as well as over Sampson’s beloved South Africa. The public schools and Oxbridge are still there, but captured for other purposes. Rank derived from birth and class now derives from style and political correctness. The old boy networks are replaced by the luvvie networks. Sampson himself (Westminster and Christ Church) became a Social Democrat during the 1980s.

Set aside the party label; its opponents perceive a state of mind shared by larger numbers of people. They are the commentariat. They allegedly run the media, the universities, the civil service, the judiciary. They are not, indeed, socialist: that would be too uncool an ideology for the twenty-first century. But they are not democrats either, and instinctively reject the outcome of the largest democratic exercise in British history, the referendum of 2016. To them this is ‘populism’, the opposite of themselves.

In this sense, say their opponents with ever clearer definition, social democrats are ‘anywheres’ rather than ‘somewheres’: they have no particular loyalty to a country, let alone Bolsover or Sunderland. They encourage mass migration and multiculturalism. They have places in the sun. They countenance divorce, sex change, and gay marriage. They are secularists who favour religions that are loud against religious establishments. The EU suits them perfectly. Its Roman Law tradition fits their world view, since it works down from grand statements of principle; England’s common law tradition worked up, from specific concrete entitlements. In their eyes, social democrats champion correct, modern, enlightened values. These entail membership of the EU.

Against this perceived social democratic hegemony have developed two great protests: Momentum, and the Brexit movement. To simplify, Momentum wants real socialism; Brexit wants real democracy. They can only achieve either by championing an old ideal that now becomes a new one: the People are sovereign.

Both these conceptions of democracy are plausible, but flawed. They have historic force, but they are contradictory. A collision was inevitable sooner or later. What better ground on which to fight than the UK’s membership of the EU?

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Why Doesn’t Chick-fil-A Cave? The Family Owners Made a Covenant to ‘Be Faithful to Christ’

Westlake Legal Group cross-1448946_1280-620x413 Why Doesn’t Chick-fil-A Cave? The Family Owners Made a Covenant to ‘Be Faithful to Christ’ Uncategorized the pistol s. truett cathy religion Politics pistol pete maravich LGBT God gay marriage Front Page Stories Dan Cathy Culture & Faith Culture covenant Christianity Chick-Fil-A Business & Economy Allow Media Exception

 

 

Chick-fil-A really is a marvel.

Unlike so many other companies (would that be, all other companies?), they haven’t caved to any pressure from the far and belligerent Left.

Why not?

Could it be because it’s dumb to say what others tell you to say, rather than what you believe you should?

Perhaps.

But according to Business Insider, the company’s commitment to certain ideals has to do with keeping a promise.

In founder Truett Cathy’s memoir, Eat Mor Chickin: Inspire More People, he recalled a covenant he and his family made:

“We will be faithful to Christ’s lordship in our lives. As committed Christians we will live a life of selfless devotion to His calling in our lives. We will prayerfully seek His leadership in all major decisions that impact our family and others. Our family roles as spouses to our lifelong mates, parents to our children, and loving aunts and uncles will be our priority.”

The family vowed to uphold its Christian values as it found success and a place of cultural influence — achieved in part by philanthropic work, always being closed on Sunday, and never taking the company public.

In 2013, Truett’s son, Dan, took the helm as CEO. Since then, he’s seen the chicken chain become a veritable empire: It’s now the third largest chain in the U.S., with the first-most important single pickle in the history of sandwiches.

What a difference a dill makes. MmmmMMMM!

But my, how some hate the fast food favorite.

Chick-fil-A caught flack for its matrimonial disposition — here’s what Dan said on The Ken Coleman Show amid debate over gay marriage:

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

Last year, as noted by The Daily Wire, both The New Yorker and HuffPostd railed against the Chick.

HP’s headline: “If You Really Love LGBTQ People, You Just Can’t Keep Eating Chick-fil-A.”

TNY lamented the restaurant’s “creepy infiltration” of The Big Apple:

And yet, it continues thrive.

Wanna know more about the makers of your favorite cherry-topped milkshake? I have two things for you to check out:

  • WinShape camps for girls, aimed to impact “young people through a summer camp experience that allows them to sharpen character, grow in relationships and deepen Christian faith.”
  • The Chick-fil-A-distributed family film The Pistol, about the life of basketball great Pistol Pete Maravich.

If you’ve experienced either, share your views in the Comments section.

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

Light In A Dark Place: Chick-Fil-A Manager Delivers Kindness To A 96-Year-Old Man In A Story That’ll Brighten Your Day

Babylon Bee Is Hitting A Little Too Close To Home On Chick-Fil-A And Leftist Naziism

Texas Lawmakers Pass The ‘Save Chick-Fil-A’ Bill. Will The Governor Sign It? Here’s A Clue

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 



 

 

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Why Doesn’t Chick-fil-A Cave? The Family Owners Made a Covenant to ‘Be Faithful to Christ’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group cross-1448946_1280-300x200 Why Doesn’t Chick-fil-A Cave? The Family Owners Made a Covenant to ‘Be Faithful to Christ’ Uncategorized the pistol s. truett cathy religion Politics pistol pete maravich LGBT God gay marriage Front Page Stories Dan Cathy Culture & Faith Culture covenant Christianity Chick-Fil-A Business & Economy Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Why Doesn’t Chick-fil-A Cave? The Family Owners Made a Covenant to ‘Be Faithful to Christ’

Westlake Legal Group cross-1448946_1280-620x413 Why Doesn’t Chick-fil-A Cave? The Family Owners Made a Covenant to ‘Be Faithful to Christ’ Uncategorized the pistol s. truett cathy religion Politics pistol pete maravich LGBT God gay marriage Front Page Stories Dan Cathy Culture & Faith Culture covenant Christianity Chick-Fil-A Business & Economy Allow Media Exception

 

 

Chick-fil-A really is a marvel.

Unlike so many other companies (would that be, all other companies?), they haven’t caved to any pressure from the far and belligerent Left.

Why not?

Could it be because it’s dumb to say what others tell you to say, rather than what you believe you should?

Perhaps.

But according to Business Insider, the company’s commitment to certain ideals has to do with keeping a promise.

In founder Truett Cathy’s memoir, Eat Mor Chickin: Inspire More People, he recalled a covenant he and his family made:

“We will be faithful to Christ’s lordship in our lives. As committed Christians we will live a life of selfless devotion to His calling in our lives. We will prayerfully seek His leadership in all major decisions that impact our family and others. Our family roles as spouses to our lifelong mates, parents to our children, and loving aunts and uncles will be our priority.”

The family vowed to uphold its Christian values as it found success and a place of cultural influence — achieved in part by philanthropic work, always being closed on Sunday, and never taking the company public.

In 2013, Truett’s son, Dan, took the helm as CEO. Since then, he’s seen the chicken chain become a veritable empire: It’s now the third largest chain in the U.S., with the first-most important single pickle in the history of sandwiches.

What a difference a dill makes. MmmmMMMM!

But my, how some hate the fast food favorite.

Chick-fil-A caught flack for its matrimonial disposition — here’s what Dan said on The Ken Coleman Show amid debate over gay marriage:

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

Last year, as noted by The Daily Wire, both The New Yorker and HuffPostd railed against the Chick.

HP’s headline: “If You Really Love LGBTQ People, You Just Can’t Keep Eating Chick-fil-A.”

TNY lamented the restaurant’s “creepy infiltration” of The Big Apple:

And yet, it continues thrive.

Wanna know more about the makers of your favorite cherry-topped milkshake? I have two things for you to check out:

  • WinShape camps for girls, aimed to impact “young people through a summer camp experience that allows them to sharpen character, grow in relationships and deepen Christian faith.”
  • The Chick-fil-A-distributed family film The Pistol, about the life of basketball great Pistol Pete Maravich.

If you’ve experienced either, share your views in the Comments section.

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

Light In A Dark Place: Chick-Fil-A Manager Delivers Kindness To A 96-Year-Old Man In A Story That’ll Brighten Your Day

Babylon Bee Is Hitting A Little Too Close To Home On Chick-Fil-A And Leftist Naziism

Texas Lawmakers Pass The ‘Save Chick-Fil-A’ Bill. Will The Governor Sign It? Here’s A Clue

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 



 

 

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Why Doesn’t Chick-fil-A Cave? The Family Owners Made a Covenant to ‘Be Faithful to Christ’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group cross-1448946_1280-300x200 Why Doesn’t Chick-fil-A Cave? The Family Owners Made a Covenant to ‘Be Faithful to Christ’ Uncategorized the pistol s. truett cathy religion Politics pistol pete maravich LGBT God gay marriage Front Page Stories Dan Cathy Culture & Faith Culture covenant Christianity Chick-Fil-A Business & Economy Allow Media Exception  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Elizabeth Warren Makes the Case for Gay Reparations

Westlake Legal Group warren-4-620x266 Elizabeth Warren Makes the Case for Gay Reparations Taxes Tax Code Politics pandering Impractical Gay Reparations gay marriage Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Elizabeth Warren democrats Can't Work 2020 election

Elizabeth Warren has made a campaign of promising nearly every identity group in existence some form of monetary handout. Whether it’s race, age, or socioeconomic background, she’s got something for you. From reparations for the descendants of slaves to paying off student loans of millennials.

The media have taken this as a sign of just how serious of a candidate she is. You see, she has “plans” and that’s what really matters here. The fact that her plans are mostly nonsensical, not possible, and sometimes even harmful don’t play into the equation.

Well, Warren isn’t done yet. She’s got a new string she’s pulling on.

Gay reparations. 

And it wasn’t until last year that the standard deduction was doubled, allowing me to keep more of my money. Does the government owe me reparations for their unfair tax practices before that?

Tax laws change. Certain groups who didn’t get benefits end up getting benefits down the road. Others may have them taken away. In the case of gay marriage, the country decided that the traditional definition of such and it’s purpose under tax law no longer applied.

Ok, I’m not here to relitigate that, but that’s hardly a case for paying gay people who weren’t married at the time tax refunds based on the idea that they otherwise would have been married. How do you prove that? Can any two gay people just claim they were a couple pre-gay marriage to get some of the $50M we supposedly owe them?

This is the problem with reparations of any kind. They sound good emotionally to certain political persuasions, but they are completely impractical. Warren’s claim in that tweet is unworkable on so many levels that it’s not even worth discussing.

But instead of calling her out for shameless pandering, we are told by the media at large that she’s a genius with so many ambitious “ideas.” No one has even bothered, though, to ask Warren how she’s going to pay for all these giveaways and you can bet MSNBC won’t at the first debate.

Politics isn’t kindergarten. You don’t get praise simply for smearing paint on enough sheets of paper. If someone has lots of ideas but they are bad ideas, then they deserve to be treated as such.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Elizabeth Warren Makes the Case for Gay Reparations appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group warren-6-300x225 Elizabeth Warren Makes the Case for Gay Reparations Taxes Tax Code Politics pandering Impractical Gay Reparations gay marriage Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Elizabeth Warren democrats Can't Work 2020 election  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Elizabeth Warren Makes the Case for Gay Reparations

Westlake Legal Group warren-4-620x266 Elizabeth Warren Makes the Case for Gay Reparations Taxes Tax Code Politics pandering Impractical Gay Reparations gay marriage Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Elizabeth Warren democrats Can't Work 2020 election

Elizabeth Warren has made a campaign of promising nearly every identity group in existence some form of monetary handout. Whether it’s race, age, or socioeconomic background, she’s got something for you. From reparations for the descendants of slaves to paying off student loans of millennials.

The media have taken this as a sign of just how serious of a candidate she is. You see, she has “plans” and that’s what really matters here. The fact that her plans are mostly nonsensical, not possible, and sometimes even harmful don’t play into the equation.

Well, Warren isn’t done yet. She’s got a new string she’s pulling on.

Gay reparations. 

And it wasn’t until last year that the standard deduction was doubled, allowing me to keep more of my money. Does the government owe me reparations for their unfair tax practices before that?

Tax laws change. Certain groups who didn’t get benefits end up getting benefits down the road. Others may have them taken away. In the case of gay marriage, the country decided that the traditional definition of such and it’s purpose under tax law no longer applied.

Ok, I’m not here to relitigate that, but that’s hardly a case for paying gay people who weren’t married at the time tax refunds based on the idea that they otherwise would have been married. How do you prove that? Can any two gay people just claim they were a couple pre-gay marriage to get some of the $50M we supposedly owe them?

This is the problem with reparations of any kind. They sound good emotionally to certain political persuasions, but they are completely impractical. Warren’s claim in that tweet is unworkable on so many levels that it’s not even worth discussing.

But instead of calling her out for shameless pandering, we are told by the media at large that she’s a genius with so many ambitious “ideas.” No one has even bothered, though, to ask Warren how she’s going to pay for all these giveaways and you can bet MSNBC won’t at the first debate.

Politics isn’t kindergarten. You don’t get praise simply for smearing paint on enough sheets of paper. If someone has lots of ideas but they are bad ideas, then they deserve to be treated as such.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Elizabeth Warren Makes the Case for Gay Reparations appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group warren-6-300x225 Elizabeth Warren Makes the Case for Gay Reparations Taxes Tax Code Politics pandering Impractical Gay Reparations gay marriage Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Elizabeth Warren democrats Can't Work 2020 election  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Popular PBS Kids Show Has It’s First Gay Wedding

Westlake Legal Group screen-shot-2019-05-14-at-7-41-02-am-620x337 Popular PBS Kids Show Has It’s First Gay Wedding PBS gay marriage Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture cartoon arthur

PBS made the public aware of two surprising reveals this week.

First, it’s popular children’s cartoon ‘Arthur’ is not only still being produced, it is in its twenty-second season.

Westlake Legal Group giphy Popular PBS Kids Show Has It’s First Gay Wedding PBS gay marriage Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture cartoon arthur

That news alone is shocking enough, but the long-running program produced some additional low-key shockwaves by marrying off one it’s regular characters – Mr. Ratburn. To a man (manimal?).

Mr. Ratburn is Arthur’s teacher and the episode in question begins with a case of mistaken identity when Arthur and friends think thing beloved teacher is set to marry a horrid female character (voiced by the great Jane Lynch). They eventually come to find out that Mr. Ratburn is gay and marrying a male.

CBS reports that while this isn’t the first time gay characters have been featured on the show this is definitely the first gay wedding.

It’s not the first time the children’s show has included LGBTQ storylines although the last one occurred in 2005, TV Line reports. In the episode “Postcards from Buster,” Arthur’s best friend met children with two moms while on a trip to Vermont.

The word “lesbian” was not used in the episode, nor was the word “gay” used in the episode about Mr. Ratburn. However, the show received praise for teaching children that men can marry men and women can marry women.

Twitter reactions were mixed, but more than anything people were just shocked the show is still on after all these years.

 

 

The post Popular PBS Kids Show Has It’s First Gay Wedding appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Spring_Banner-300x97 Popular PBS Kids Show Has It’s First Gay Wedding PBS gay marriage Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture cartoon arthur  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

SE Cupp’s hot take on Buttigieg, Pence and gay marriage isn’t new

Westlake Legal Group se-cupps-hot-take-on-buttigieg-pence-and-gay-marriage-isnt-new SE Cupp’s hot take on Buttigieg, Pence and gay marriage isn’t new The Blog se cupp Pete Buttigieg Mike Pence gay marriage 2020 election

Westlake Legal Group cupp SE Cupp’s hot take on Buttigieg, Pence and gay marriage isn’t new The Blog se cupp Pete Buttigieg Mike Pence gay marriage 2020 election

I’ve been seeing any number of reactions to SE Cupp’s recent coverage of the spat between Mike Pence and Pete Buttigieg over various LGBT questions in general and gay marriage in particular. I’m not going to transcribe the entire commentary, but if you want to watch it you can do so here. The bottom line is that she’s telling the GOP that it’s time to get over the whole gay marriage thing. (“Resist this progress at your own peril.”)

Noticing some of the responses on Twitter, I’ve seen suggestions that perhaps Cupp has been steeping in the Koolaid at CNN for too long and it’s influenced her thinking. Let me assure you, that’s not the case. She’s been a supporter of gay marriage since… forever? If you need more proof of that, watch this brief clip from several years ago when the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage was handed down. She very nearly breaks into tears talking about why she feels it was the right thing to do.

While I may not agree with every point SE is making, both on the politics or the underlying policy surrounding this debate, some of her observations on electoral ramifications are hard to ignore. But let me first just remind everyone of my own position on this (which regular readers are probably familiar with). I don’t support gay marriage. I don’t support straight marriage. I support my marriage and the rest of you are pretty much on your own. What I’m opposed to is the idea that the government – at any level – can assume for itself the power to demand a permission slip (called a license) for and charge a tax (called a fee) to any pair of consenting adults before they can hold a private ceremony before friends and family that affects exactly zero other people in the country. In my view, that’s the small government conservative approach to the question.

At the same time, I find it specious to criticize or simply write off anyone who objects to the practice on the basis of firmly held religious beliefs. (If you object because you simply find gay people offputting I don’t know what to tell you.) Attempting to silence the voices of conservatives with deeply held religious values doesn’t advance anyone’s cause. Even if we don’t arrive at the same conclusions when debating such a sensitive topic, it’s okay for us to agree to disagree.

But with all that said, SE makes a few points about the current electoral landscape that can’t be denied. In terms of the perceptions of the public and the majority of elected officials, that ship has pretty much sailed. Nearly all Democrats and liberals, along with the lion’s share of moderates and independents are okay with gay marriage. Heck, roughly half of Republicans are. That doesn’t mean that those of you with the aforementioned religious objections should be instructed to abandon your values. It simply means we need to acknowledge that candidates who campaign on opposition to gay marriage and an intention to relitigate the issue are coming out of the starting gate with a major albatross around their neck.

She’s also warning about the risk the GOP faces when figuring out how to talk about a candidate like Pete Buttigieg. He’s that rarest of political beasts – a liberal who goes out on the trail speaking candidly and passionately about his Christian faith. If you go after him on the gay marriage thing (or “gay anything” for that matter), you’re walking into a trap. Best to simply hoist him up the flagpole on subjects like raising taxes, Medicare for All and socialism in general. He can do the rest of the work for you himself.

I get the impression that this was sort of the underlying message SE was putting out there, and dragging her over a dose of realism is counterproductive.

The post SE Cupp’s hot take on Buttigieg, Pence and gay marriage isn’t new appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group cupp-300x159 SE Cupp’s hot take on Buttigieg, Pence and gay marriage isn’t new The Blog se cupp Pete Buttigieg Mike Pence gay marriage 2020 election  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com