Libertarians in favor of State Imposition of Sexual Orthodoxy.
I have been absolutely stunned by the Libertarian move into Leftist Totalitarianism.
One would think that "liberty" meant not interfering in people's lives unless (a) it was really important and (b) there was no other alternative.
But we have to add a third, stand-alone element: the State can interfere with people's lives in order to enforce the new orthodoxy of the Sexual Revolution.
//In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court assumed without deciding that the government has a compelling interest in providing free abortifacients (more astonishment from the Founders) but it found there were less restrictive means of accomplishing this goal than forcing religious business-owners to provide it. The Court expressed similar skepticism in the Little Sisters of the Poor case, directing the parties to work out an acceptable alternative.
Under RFRA, may a religious zealot “shoot somebody” because he says God told him to? Of course not. Enforcing criminal law is always a compelling government interest. In the 25 years of the federal RFRA’s existence, there has been no case – not one – of the type Johnson claims to fear.
Perhaps Johnson’s sympathy toward the LGBT agenda predisposes him to accept those activists’ propaganda at face value. But there’s no excuse for either intentional or lazy misrepresentation of the fundamental First Amendment issues arising from the LGBT cultural onslaught. Conservatives looking for an alternative to the major-party candidates should keep looking.//
This is perfectly consistent with Mary Eberstadt's argument in her new book that "protection of the sexual revolution" explains so much of modern culture.
Posts
