Update this timeline entry

U.S. Supreme Court declared same-sex “marriage” a constitutional right

Source: It’s Not Like Being Black #703

Project ID

Chapter

Timeline title

Start date

End date

Filename received

Filename assigned

Content

A Tale of Two Stories
In July 2015, two seemingly unrelated stories highlighted the effectiveness of this propaganda. The first was when the U.S. Supreme Court declared same-sex “marriage” a constitutional right. The second was a story from the other side of the country: Rachel Dolezal, the leader of the NAACP chapter in Spokane, Washington, made headlines when people discovered she was a white woman who had been pretending to be black for many years.

What do these two events have to do with each other?
Dolezal was doing the same thing the LGBTQIA+ lobby, led by lesbians and gay men, had been doing for years: She was working to leverage political power by pretending to be part of an aggrieved minority group. And, like those who identify as homosexuals, her identification was rooted in a history of deep personal feelings and a lifestyle based on living in accordance with those feelings.
“I definitely am not white,” she declared on NBC News, noting that by the age of five,
she was drawing self-portraits with the brown crayon instead of the peach crayon, and black curly hair. . . . Nothing about being white describes who I am. . . .
The closest thing that I can come to is if—if you’re black or white, I’m black.
I’m more black than I am white.18

This sounds exactly like the testimony of people who declare themselves to be “sexual minorities.” They’ve “known” it since they were children. They’ve acted upon that knowledge, built their lives around that identity, and presented themselves to the world in that way.

I can already hear the objections to this comparison. “But being black is based on genetics.” Right—and so is being male or female, but that hasn’t stopped us from declaring lately that “trans women are women.” We allow transsexuals to use bathrooms and even compete in the Olympics based on their biology-contradicting self-declarations. And we declare homosexuality to be as innate and immutable as ethnicity despite a complete absence of any biological evidence for that belief. This is all because we are dealing not with facts, but with propaganda.

Consider what Kennedy wrote in Obergefell.
Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect and need for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.19 (emphasis mine)
Kennedy identified homosexuality as having an “immutable nature,” skipping right over the argument that it is genetically determined—a highly debatable claim at best—to the idea that it cannot be changed. He offered no evidence for his assertion because there is none. In fact, there is quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines sexual orientation as “a person’s sexual and emotional attraction to another person and the behavior and/or social affiliation that may result from this attraction.”20 According to the Association of Cognitive and Behavioral Therapies, sexual orientation has at least three components: 1) the type of person to whom someone is romantically and/or sexually attracted (i.e., attractions); 2) the type of person with whom someone has sex (i.e., behavior); and 3) how someone labels or identifies himself (i.e., identity).21 I share these two definitions because they are consistent with other mainstream definitions that make no mention of the “identities” of “sexual minorities” being either innate or immutable. According to these definitions, the only things that matter are what you desire, what you do, and what you declare—the same standards Dolezal used to justify her identity as a black woman even though she was clearly not one.

These two stories continue to bear their contradictory witness. One proclaims that you are what you declare you are (and how you choose to live), and that the law must respect and reflect that choice. The other proclaims that you have no right to declare yourself to be a member of a minority group without sufficient biological evidence to back up that claim. Ironically, Rachel Dolezal is more like me ethnically than she ever will be in terms of her gender since the distance between black people and white people is a matter of degree, while male and female are entirely separate categories.

So why do we play these games? Because of a well-placed myth.