“A Queer Conclusion”

Cool sites
- Blog Directory
Categories
- Uncategorized (8)
Monthly
- June 2008 (8)
Pages
- About
Meta
- Login
- Valid XHTML
- XFN

Latest Posts
Feed on
- Posts RSS
- Comments RSS
Search
Blogroll
- WordPress.com
- WordPress.org

Jun 03 2008

Published by zer0es at 5:06 pm under Uncategorized Edit This

“A Queer Conclusion”
Or
“Brokeback Justice”
By: J. Thomas Hunter

The United States was founded by geniuses, yet it stands to be destroyed by fools. Last week, ecstatic crowds cheered the California Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision to thumb their nose at thousands of years of Western civilization and redefine marriage, for the first time in history, to include same-sex couples. The countless number of liberals who pensively stroke their beards and ruminate about whether or not American media is biased need only pick up a magazine on this issue to answer their question. USA Today recounts the jovial scene outside the courthouse thusly, “When the decision was announced, cheers erupted outside the courthouse. Drivers honked and smiled. A lone protester was practically ignored.” What the author, Janet Kornblum, meant to say was, “gay marriage is totally acceptable. And if you disagree, you’re just a fringe lunatic!” Ironically, though, that “lone protestor” represented 4,618,673 California voters who in 2000 passed a referendum defining marriage in traditional terms. Millions of voters who exercised their God given right to self-rule were thwarted by a total of 4 people dressed in black robes! Only in America could you find the same liberals who incessantly whined about mischievous Diebold machines in ’04, cheering the most blatant affront to representative government—legislation via judicial fiat.

San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsom’s celebration was both haunting and over-the-top. “What a day in California! What a day for America! It’s about human dignity. It’s about civil rights. It’s about time,” he exclaimed. “And by the way,” Newsom continued, “as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation!”

Surely, Iowa, Wyoming, Alabama, Texas, and Indiana are beaming with excited anticipation. Nothing says “America” like two men kissing in bridal wear.

It would be easy to ignore this event and liken it to the decision in Massachusetts that allowed gay marriage, but there is a glaring distinction. Massachusetts law requires gay couples to be residents of the state before they are married. The California ruling stands to engender a gay pilgrimage to the Golden State and to populate the nation with “married” gay couples. If Newsom is right, and this trend of judicial activism sweeps across the nation, what ramifications will it have on America’s future?

The outlook is grim.

Writing for the majority (insert air quotes here), Chief Justice Ronald M. George emphasized that the court’s decision would not affect religious institutions, and will not require priests and rabbis to perform gay marriages. Evan Wolfson, the executive director of Freedom to Marry, is quoted in the New York Times as saying, “[t]his decision will give Americans the lived experience that ending exclusion from marriage helps families and harms no one.” He goes on to note that Canada and liberal European nations, like the Netherlands (Holland), have long since legalized gay marriage. (See last week’s article about the Left’s obsession with Europe.)

Despite both men’s claims that this decision “harms no one” and will not affect religious practices, strong contradictory research hails from the Netherlands, Canada, and the United States. Dutch social scientists, for example, report an alarming increase in unwed birth rates since Holland began instituting same-sex marriage allowances. “It’s no coincidence both [the introduction of same-sex marriage and the devaluation of marriage] take place at the same time. Supporters of gay marriage often based their argument…on the separation of marriage and the raising of children,” said leading sociologist at Nottingham Trent University, Dr. J. van Loon.

Holland, one of the nations Wolfson lauded as enlighteningly progressive, instituted gay marriage in 2001 after progenitorial legislation in the 1990s. Five Dutch social scientists noted that until the late 1980s, marriage in Holland was a vibrant institution that yielded lower divorce rates than most Western nations. Since then, the number of marriages has significantly decreased, and the rate of illegitimate births has risen from 11% in 1989 to a staggering 31 percent in 2003! The researchers summed up their evidence thusly, “In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid ‘lifestyle choices’ has not had serious social consequences.”

As well, to claim that gay-marriage legislation will not affect religious institutions is optimistic almost to the point of naivety. In 2006, Boston’s Catholic Charities, America’s largest adoption provider, ended their adoption program “when Massachusetts anti-discrimination laws forced them to allow married same-sex couples to adopt.” The practice is simply against church doctrine, which is of no concern to homosexual activists. In Sweden, Pastor Ake Green served jail time when he was found guilty of offending gays in a 2004 sermon. That same year, Canada made it illegal to publicly express disapproval of homosexuality.

Finally, there is the question of indoctrination. Almost 60% of Americans currently disapprove of gay marriage. However, schools that actively promote the homosexual agenda have begun the values-attack on children as young as elementary school. Books like “Daddy’s Roommate,” “Heather Has Two Mommies” (and its sequel), and “Rainbow Boys,” are part of the regular curriculum.

Illustrating the bent-wrist stranglehold gays have over the legal system, the Family Research Council relates a troubling story out of Madison, Wisconsin, of David Ott. Ott confronted two gays at a car wash, and told them that he was once gay too. Familiar with the dark and painful (no pun intended) consequences of the homosexual lifestyle, he suggested that they rethink their path. There was no fight. The men parted ways, and Ott was later served papers—charged with disorderly conduct, and a hate crime enhancer. The disorderly conduct charged carried a $500 penalty. The hate crime penalty enhancer was a $10,000 fine and a year in jail! For ten months, Ott feared imprisonment, until the lawyers settled out of court. Ott paid $7,000 in legal fees, served a year on probation, and performed 50 hours of community service. On top of these penalties, Ott was forced to take sensitivity training at the University of Wisconsin. The class was taught by two lesbians whose first order of business was to persuade the class that homosexuality is not immoral, and “if you think it is, you’re just a backward hick.”

Whether or not one believes that homosexuality is immoral is hardly at issue when discussing this travesty out of California. In fact, one judge, Carol A. Corrigan, dissented quite honorably, writing that her personal sympathies lie with the plaintiffs, but “[i]f there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box… Often new ideas are initially resisted, only to be ultimately embraced. But when ideas are imposed, opposition hardens and progress may be hampered.” That’s the least the American public asks for—a say in our culture and our government. This centerpiece of American political thought has been destroyed by selfish, overbearing, arrogant activism. Justice Marvin Baxter, another dissenting opinion, said it best: “A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the people themselves.”