OAN guest: the Respect for Marriage Act “codifies slavery for the red states”
The Blaze's Daniel Horowitz: “Well, what if everyone just said 'I'm a homosexual?' I mean, is that a good thing?”
Published
Citation
From the December 15, 2022, edition of OAN's Tipping Point
KARA MCKINNEY (HOST): So I think [Dana] Loesch puts it best and saying this is about the left taking punitive action now against religious holdouts on the right because they already got, sadly, what they wanted seven years ago. This is now about making us all fight for our lives, so to speak, in court like Jack Phillips has to do. I mean, he's on round two now, even with the Supreme Court victory under his belt. Is that what you see kind of going on?
DANIEL HOROWITZ (Senior Editor, The Blaze): Sure. Officially that's what it does. But unofficially, it also codifies, uh, slavery for the red states, to make it clear that henceforth they are going to be beholden to whatever new licentious, uh, hotness of the day California and the blue states come up with. Fun fact. Even when this was a very strong Judeo-Christian nation, the reality is there was never anything technically, legally stopping a state from redefining marriage, you know same-sex, or whatever else they wanted to do. Yet this for the first time, forces states to redefine marriage. It is such a radical idea. It literally redefines the building block of civilization, implicitly redefining men and woman. And what's interesting is — every single Democrats for it and a good number of Republicans, like every issue. I played on my podcast, a clip from Joe Biden just 15 years ago, not 60 years ago, like 2006, where he was like, of course, a marriage is a man and a woman who would think otherwise. That's how quickly the Overton Window has moved over. And I think it's important to note it's not just the 12 GOP senators and 40 or so House members who voted for it, but leadership in both houses refused to whip against it. They didn't speak against it. They didn't warn against it. They didn't talk about the religious liberty problems. It's this imbalance in passion and commitment, in outrage, in thought that is getting us into the position we're in, losing on every major policy issue.
MCKINNEY: I'm glad that you bring that up about the red states, because you're right, the blue states now, polygamy might be on the table or, you know, all these other weird forms that we're seeing seem to start percolating. But—
HOROWITZ: Pedophilia.
MCKINNEY: That, I was going to say pedophilia because as we just heard now, these are minor-attracted persons. It's all right. It's all fine. It's legitimate. Sorry — I would love to roll my eyes at this, but it's very serious, sadly, because that is where we're going. We're not just starting down the slippery slope. We're careening way down. We've been on it for a while now. But you're right, you have a blue state. They pass something like that. Now you have these red states that have to quote-unquote respect it. So a lot of issues going on right there. And I know Biden, after he did a signing, he made a lot of nonsensical comments, and one of them was a strange— it's never happened. He says, you know, you have today in this country, a gay couple could get married in the morning and kicked out of a restaurant in the afternoon. And everyone's like, right on, Joe — where, when, how? I mean, this man just talks out of his rear end. And you're right, he was defining marriage, what, ten, 15 years ago? Next thing you know, he drags Obama down to gay marriage, and then Obama has to come out and say, you know, oh, I've evolved on it, too. And yet no one ever has a sit-down discussion saying, Here's why I used to believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and here's why I don't anymore. They don't. They just drop it overnight. It's just a political hot potato. It's as if a lot of them don't even believe it themselves, and they're just kind of parroting a lot of talking points. That's what really bothers me as well. But, I mean, what do you make of Biden's comments there?
HOROWITZ: What's interesting is everything they allege that we're doing, they're already doing. It's the ultimate projection. Obviously, we all have those indelible images in our — etched in our minds of NYPD dragging out children from restaurants for not having a vaccine card, trauma victims being kicked out of doctors and hospitals for not wearing a mask. So this is exactly what they're doing. The denial of service based on political views is something only they do. Keep in mind, even all these cases where Christian bakers don't want to service something, they're never saying, I'm not going to give the universal service, such as, you know, dinner served at a restaurant to you because I don't like your behavior or your values. They're not going to specifically service that event. And that's the big difference. So they want to force us to service their events, yet they're the ones kicking us out of universal services, including public accommodations, up until and including kidney transplants if you don't get their ideological circumcision, a.k.a. the Pfizer shot. So this is what these guys are actually doing.
And again, it's not just about religious liberty. It is about reinforcing a national grooming that there are no familiar ties, there's no men and women, there's no family. You're all a bunch of androgynous, unrecognizable AI bots that just follow what we're doing. And this is all about increasing the momentum of — according to Gallup, 21% of Gen Z individuals identify as one of the alphabet soup distinctions that cannot procreate. Notice how everything they want to do always seems to lead to one outcome. They don't like procreation very much, and at some point we have to ask, well, is 20%, 40%, what's enough? Well, what if everyone just said 'I'm a homosexual?' I mean, is that a good thing? You know, at some point you do have to procreate. Someone's got to make the next generation. And in in what universe do they think that that agenda needs even more momentum? But again, how many Republicans actually oppose that? Very, very few.