Frum on "Gay" "Marriage"
Margaret writes to call attention to David Frum's observations on the dishonest, subversive ways of the homosexualists:
.... From an American point of view, however, what may be most remarkable about the Canadian debate has been its disingenuousness. I’ve been participating in this argument since the late 1980s. At every step along the way, it was obvious what the next step was – and what the ultimate destination would be. At every step along the way, proponents of same-sex marriage passionately denied that the next step was coming – or was even contemplated....
For the advocates of same-sex marriage, federalism is a tactic, not a principle. It will be discarded as soon as it ceases to serve its purposes.
The only happy result of the Canadian tragedy is that it dramatically demonstrates the true trajectory of the marriage debate: Like Canada, the US will go all one way or the other. You can see why the people on the losing side of the current debate would want to kick the problem down the road and settle it later, when they hope that something might alter public opinion in their favor. For the same reason, people who believe in marriage as it has always been understood in the United States should insist on settling the issue now, with a federal constitutional amendment.
P.S. Just in time, this comes over the transom:
.... During the 1996 congressional debate on the Defense of Marriage Act, gay rights activist Andrew Sullivan was asked if legalized gay marriage wouldn't simply send society sliding down a "slippery slope," where the next thing on the agenda would be legalized polygamy. "To the best of my knowledge, there is no polygamists' rights organization poised to exploit same-sex marriage and return the republic to polygamous abandon," Sullivan retorted.
It wouldn't be the last time that a gay rights activist would publicly distance the movement from other sexual minorities. In 2003, Republican Senator Rick Santorum unloaded the same sort of argument on an Associated Press reporter: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." In response, David Smith, the communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, said that it was outrageous for Santorum to put being gay on the same legal and moral plane as a person who commits incest. "That is repugnant in our view and not right," he said.
There are a few important lessons to be gleaned here. First, social conservatives see the slippery slope as a poison arrow that can prevent all-out gay marriage, and they will use it again and again. Second, gay marriage advocates will say anything to distance gays and lesbians from other sexual minorities: the polygamous, the swingers, the S&M practitioners, and those rare couples that happen to be related.
This arms-length strategy is good PR. The reality, though, is that non-gay sexual minority groups are doing exactly what Sullivan said was improbable in 1996: they have formed political organizations to fight for their rights....
As these groups continue to earn publicity, gay marriage proponents will increasingly see their argument attacked on both flanks. Liberals and progressives will begin to chastise those activists who sell their principles of sexual liberation down the river in the name of media spin. Those who decide to align themselves with these groups risk being viewed as extremists. Either way, it's a good guess that, like it or not, gay marriage proponents are about to start sliding down that slippery slope.
Lane Core Jr. CIW P Fri. 12/10/04 08:19:13 AM
Categorized as Political.