Gay MarriageHmmm. What to do with that.
Well I will tell you exactly what you can do with that, and that is to stop using the word marriage and gay in the same sentence. By now it may be already too late, if you believe Rush Limbaugh. Though he's not always right, he's usually pretty close.
Gay people. They've come a long way since the infamous Stonewall Riots in NYC. But it has morphed into a David & Goliath myth; invoking a victimized underclass fighting for its Civil Rights and using violence as a last resort. But is this so? Were Gays so "put upon" that their only resort was to create its own cultural brand? Hardly.In his radio show today, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said defenders of traditional marriage have lost the battle, even though the Supreme Court won’t hand down its decisions for another few months. “I don’t care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable,” Limbaugh said, “and it’s inevitable because we lost the language on this.”
Limbaugh took issue with the idea that the word marriage was already applied to gay couples. Therefore, he asserted, modifiers like “hetero” or “opposite-sex” are now at times added to denote a union between a man and a woman.
“I maintain to you that we lost the issue when we started allowing the word ‘marriage’ to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it – because marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination. It wasn’t established on the basis of denying people anything,” the radio host said. “Marriage is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way.”
RadicalsThe 1960's saw the birth of several movements; including the Gay Liberation Movement. The New Left infused the debate in the 60's with a new brand of activism. To some it seemed that starting a "movement" was something that could lead to greater glory and personal esteem. We saw that beginning in the 60's a large number of Statist groups came to the forefront to Agitate under the banner of Saul Alinsky. These groups publicly decried for greater "freedoms" and for "liberation" but what they secretly wanted was a society that was unconstrained by the constitution, the church and ultimately God.
Whether the Statist group was black, latino, gay or communist - no matter. The ends justified the means. Each Identity Group began to stake out its claim on the Labor of the US Citizen. And make no mistake: the Statists of the 60's are no different than those that are preaching their "victimhood" today. As Mark Levin so eloquently pointed out on page 15 of Liberty and Tyranny, the Statist can be captured in one snapshot.
Levin goes on to describe that the Statist, thus put upon by the civil society, and expected to conduct himself in an honorable and responsible manner, realizes that he's encumbered with the anger and petulance, and that he must convince the Individual to be dehumanized and controlled. What better way to do that than through the instrumentalities of government. Because who's going to fight City Hall? Once the government becomes the All-encompassing Leviathan, then the citizen has nowhere else to go BUT to the State."The Conservative must accept that the Statist does not share his passion for Liberty and all the good that flows from it. The Statist does not acknowledge the tremendous benefits to society from the individual pursuits of tens of millions of others. The Statist rejects the Founders' idea of the dignity of the individual, who can flourish through ordered Liberty, for one rooted in unpredictability, irrationality and ultimately tyranny.
It is observed that the Statist is dissatisfied with the condition of his own existence. He condemns his fellow man, surroundings and society itself for denying him the fulfillment, success, and adulation he feels he deserves. He is angry, resentful, petulant, and jealous. He is incapable of honest self-assessment, and rejects the honest assessment of himself by others, thereby evading responsibility for his own miserable condition. The Statist searches for significance - even glory - in a Utopian fiction of his own minds' making, the earthly attainment of which he believes, is frustrated by those who do not share it. Therefore he must destroy the civil society piece by piece. For the Statist, Liberty is not a blessing but the enemy." ~ Liberty and Tyranny, page 15.
Pay No Attention to the Queen behind that curtain!So the GLF starts to agitate for more "rights" (whatever that means, since the last time I checked Gays weren't being denied their constitutional rights; and thrown from buildings and placed into Internment Camps). And now ~ Voila! ~ 40+ years later after all the brainwashing, propaganda and demagoguery - we've finally arrived. Now, the Gay Statist believes, we can officially pressure the court through majoritarianism (ie. Mob Rule) into establishing homosexual marriage as Just the Same As traditional marriage. That way, the Gay Mafia can bypass the ballot box and go straight to the courts to get their warped world view institutionalized. And the Liberal-Straights go right along! Seems that nowadays, Conformity is the highest virtue of the Modern Democrat voter. And we know that every Gay person is just like the funny, witty and stylishly dressed Gay couple in the ABC TV show "Modern family' - right? From Mark Steyn's column today:
And Steyn demolishes the "interracial marriage" argument here.Gay marriage? It came up at dinner Down Under this time last year, and the prominent Aussie politician on my right said matter-of-factly, "It's not about expanding marriage, it's about destroying marriage."
That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a "meaningless piece of paper" or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting it's a universal human right. They've figured out what, say, terrorist-turned-educator Bill Ayers did – that, when it comes to destroying core civilizational institutions, trying to blow them up is less effective than hollowing them out from within.
On the other hand, there are those who argue it's a victory for the powerful undertow of bourgeois values over the surface ripples of sexual transgressiveness: gays will now be as drearily suburban as the rest of us.
A couple of years back, I saw a picture in the paper of two chubby old queens tying the knot at City Hall in Vancouver, and the thought occurred that Western liberalism had finally succeeded in boring all the fun out of homosexuality.
SCOTUS tissueSo here we are with SCOTUS hearing arguments from both sides on the Gay Marriage issue. We know how the "lesser lights" on the Supreme Court are going to vote (ie. Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Elaine "Diesel Dyke" Kagan). The only thing their brief will be good for is to wipe your ass with it. Where do I come down on it? I come down on the side of the sovereign individual, and on the side of traditional marriage. You cannot look back at the history of our civilization, including our ancestors who were painting the cave walls at Lasceoux France some 35,000 years ago, and ignore that traditional marriage (ie. between one man, and one woman) was the linchpin of human evolution. What society promoted and enshrined homosexuality and flourished?
The fall of the Roman Empire was a result of "the effeminacy of a few in Carthage, a paradise for homosexuals, who infected the many.
"The abhorrent presence of a few gays infected a good part of the (Roman) people," Prof Mattei told Radio Maria, a Catholic radio station.