Gay Haters Ponder Future As Gay Marriage Ruling Approaches

On April 28, 2015, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee where state marriage bans were upheld in a questionable ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.  Given the Court's refusal to take appeals from other Circuits and thereby allow bans in other states to be struck down, the consensus is that the Court will now have to finally strike down all such bans.  Recent polls reveal that a majority of Americans believe that the Court has no option but to strike down such bans as reported by Huffington Post:

In a nationwide USA Today/Suffolk University Poll, those surveyed say by 51 percent-35 percent that it’s no longer practical for the Supreme Court to ban same-sex marriages because so many states have legalized them.

One reason for a transformation in public views on the issue: Close to half say they have a gay or lesbian family member or close friend who is married to someone of the same sex.

This leaves gay haters, especially those in the professional Christian class who have made a ton of money peddling hate and anti-gay animus such as Maggie Gallagher (who is psychologically disturbed in my view) and  political whores like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal who hope jumping on the misnamed "religious freedom" bandwagon will breath life into a nonstarter presidential campaign in a quandary.  The country is moving on while they remain locked in a prejudiced and bigoted past.  Many are simply tired of the religious extremists who seek to force their fear and hate based beliefs on others.  Gallagher seems unable to give up the lure of living well by being a hate merchant and, as Right Wing Watch reports, is positioning herself to keep the cash flowing in by fanning the Christian presecution myth:

James Dobson continues to prepare for the upcoming Supreme Court arguments on marriage equality by gathering anti-gay activists on his radio program to discuss the various calamities that will befall the United States if the court strikes down state-level bans on gay marriage.

On today's program, Dobson spoke with former National Organization for Marriage president Maggie Gallagher, who warned that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality would represent the literal end of civilization and the beginning of an era in which Christians become a persecuted minority.

Declaring that the push for marriage equality is nothing more than "an attempt to impose a new morality on all of America," Gallagher warned Dobson's audience to get ready to live as pariahs in a society in which people of faith and marginalized and persecuted.  "Christianity in this country is going to enter a new phase where we are a hated minority group," she declared

What Gallagher and Dobson really fear is that they face the prospect of being treated as they and other "godly Christians" have treated others for far, far too long.   Worse yet, the money flow that they have enjoyed beating the gay bogey man to death may collapse. I have ZERO sympathy for these foul individuals.

A piece in the New York Times looks at how other Christofascist are reacting in the face of lost privilege and deference.  Here are highlights: 

In Northeastern states like Vermont and New York, large majorities support same-sex marriage. And in many more states including California, where a vote in 2008 to ban it was later overturned by the courts, such marriages have become routine.

In perhaps a dozen other states, mainly in the South and the Great Plains, majorities still think that gay couples should not be allowed to marry, studies indicate. Some conservative leaders promise to keep defending that view whatever the Supreme Court decrees — and even if they have few practical options.

“If the government wants to pretend to redefine marriage, I don’t think that will settle the issue,” said Tami Fitzgerald, the executive director of the North Carolina Values Coalition.  Still, once the Supreme Court speaks, in a decision widely expected to make same-sex marriage a national right, the opponents’ anger and energies are likely to focus on a more limited issue, what they call protections for conservative religious officials or vendors who want to avoid involvement in same-sex weddings.

Gerald N. Rosenberg, a political scientist and legal scholar at the University of Chicago, said his former predictions of a wider, lasting backlash to marriage rulings had been overtaken by the “sea change in public opinion.”

Such “opt out” proposals may produce political heat, as recently seen in Indiana and Arkansas, where the governors, under pressure from businesses, felt compelled to weaken so-called religious freedom bills. But they will not impede the ability of gay couples to marry, Mr. Rosenberg said.

Yet whatever resistance strategies are adopted, many legal and political experts who have studied the impact of divisive Supreme Court rulings in the past, and the trajectory of the same-sex marriage movement, say they do not expect a lasting, powerful backlash of the kind that followed decisions on school desegregation and abortion.

Instead, the experience in states where same-sex marriage has already been legalized suggests that public opposition is likely to wither over time.

[M]any churchgoing residents here viewed the issue with a live-and-let-live shrug.  “I’m not in favor of gay marriage, it’s a sin, but there’s not much I can do about it,” said Sandra Vernon, 64, a retired office worker, as she left a coffee shop in nearby Reidsville.

The real fear of Gallagher, Dobson and Jindal is that as more and more individuals view gay marriage with a live-and-let-live shrug, the more the money flow will halt and, in the case of Jindal, he will be left to run on his failed policies in Louisiana.  The folks in many ways are opportunistic parasites.