"Homosexual Inroads"

Another fine editorial from Patrick Henry Reardon, for the editors, at Touchstone Magazine, Oct. 2003, discussing the recent advancement of the homosexual agenda in Canada and the USA:

.... Neither the Episcopalians nor the Canadians, however, quite prepared us for what happened on June 26, when the United States Supreme Court, by a vote of six to three, struck down a Texas law that prohibited sexual actions between members of the same sex. Even the most inveterate of optimists, those bold souls prepared to dismiss the Episcopalians as a fringe church and Canada as a fringe country, were hardly prepared for the likes of this. The judicial determination of June 26, Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, which reversed another Supreme Court decision of 17 years earlier, had the practical effect of overturning similar laws in 12 other states.

This Supreme Court decision, it appears to us, potentially affects the very structure of our society, because of the premises ratified and the reasoning pursued by the High Court in reaching its conclusion. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, the two men who petitioned against the State of Texas were “entitled to respect for their private lives.” Kennedy went on to comment, “The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” This argument, based on a relentless, overriding solicitude for—not to say entitlement of—respect and privacy is very ominous, we believe, for the future of marriage, which is the chief contractual bond on which human social life is structured.

First, with regard to “privacy,” there appears to be no logical reason why the Supreme Court’s argument must, or will be, limited to homosexual activity. It seems to us that such a complete and unrelenting right to privacy is equally applicable to other forms of sexual expression, including adultery. For this reason, Touchstone takes issue with the several public commentators who claim that the Court’s ruling will have no effect on laws governing marriage. If homosexual sodomy is protected from legal interference by reason of a sodomite’s right to privacy, why would not an identical right to privacy similarly protect the heterosexual adulterer? Legal prohibitions against adultery, however, exist solely and manifestly for the protection of marriage. In short, we contend that Lawrence and Garner v. Texas constitutes an oblique but no less real assault on the institution of marriage, which is the foundation of the family and, as such, of many other social relationships.

Second, with regard to the “respect” that our Supreme Court seeks to guarantee to homosexuals by its recent decision, we cannot but remark on its distressing similarity to the argument used by Ontario’s Court of Appeal some two weeks earlier, when it ruled in favor of same-sex marriages. In reaching that conclusion, the Canadian court declared that “the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships is violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.” For our part, we perceive no significant difference between the “respect” sought by the Court in Washington and the “dignity” demanded by the court in Toronto. To us it appears that the force of the argument employed to keep sodomites out of jail can just as easily oblige society to issue them marriage licenses.

We are not alone in suspecting this to be a logical conclusion. At the very end of June there appeared the July 7 edition of Newsweek, the cover of which asked, “Is Gay Marriage Next?” This question, set over a picture of two young women cuddling, referred to the magazine’s major story, “The War Over Gay Marriage.”

Nonetheless, in spite of all the evidence indicating a positive response to that question, Newsweek suggested that the more likely answer is “no.” The authors commented that “the stronger movement, at least for now, appears to be in the other direction. Some 37 states—and the federal government—have adopted ‘Defense of Marriage Acts,’ which define marriage as applying only to a man and a woman, and—significantly—bar recognition of same-sex marriage from other states.”

It is our hope, of course, that this will continue to be the case, and we offer two considerations, under God, that bolster this hope....

My own feeling is that the sexual-perversity activists have gone too far, and the general public isn't going to stand for it. I also feel that the sexual-perversity activists know it: that's why, I think, the decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, that was supposed to have been delivered no later than July 14, has still not come out. I'm almost willing to bet that they'll try to hold off that decision until after the November 2004 presidential election.

(Thanks, David.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 10/04/03 05:13:38 PM
Categorized as Social/Cultural.

Two Thousand and Counting

This, Faithful Reader, is the two-thousandth entry at The Blog from the Core. :-)

I've added two more items to The Daily Roll at the end of each day's blogs. That brings the list of items to the following:

• Roman Lectionary
• Lead, Kindly Light
• Tradition Day by Day
• Calendar of the Saints
• Sacred Space
• American Memory
• NASA
• Poetry Break
• CyberAlert
• Dilbert
• Calvin & Hobbes
• Peanuts

Poetry Break and CyberAlert are published Monday through Friday only.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 10/04/03 11:00:44 AM
Categorized as Most Notable & Other.

"Yet Another Pontius Pilate"

The latest on Terri Schiavo from Times Against Humanity.

One thing I don't understand about the referenced news story: the attorney general of Florida was asked by a federal court for his official opinion whether the pertinent Forida statute violates the federal constitution. But isn't the attorney general of any state an officer of the state? And isn't it, therefore, his job to argue for the constitutionality of any statute on the books in his state?

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 10/04/03 10:58:41 AM
Categorized as Terri Schindler Schiavo.

Re: David Warren's "Next"

An overseas reader writes:

I read David Warren's post and I flatly disagree with the both of you at one major point: the U.S. ain't the only adult in the house. While I would've preferred that my country participate in the Iraq war; it didn't. However, we do have soldiers in Afganistan and 2 died yesterday. Germany lost 4 earlier this year.

Just because most allied countries didn't support the U.S. in the Iraq war doesn't make them infantile. Most know about the moral danger islamojihadism constitutes. They've have arrested lots of cell members and stopped many terrorist attempts.

It's important to be critical but let's not exaggerate and denigrate each other's efforts.

With all due respect, Warren was writing about the United Nations, not the individual countries. I appreciate and respect the contributions of other countries in the War on Terrorism, and I hope everybody does. Besides, several dozen countries supported the War Against Saddam Hussein.

As to the "moral danger islamojihadism constitutes", not only do I doubt that most countries understand it yet, I doubt that most Americans understand it yet, either.

See "Next".

P.S. David Warren is a Canadian.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 10/04/03 10:40:46 AM
Categorized as International.