![]() |
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Tue. 03/15/05 07:16:17 AM
|
||||
The March of the Homonazis Continues Thanks to Margaret for calling to our attention this insightful column, yesterday, by Jeff Jacoby: .... Massachusetts rolled out a new marriage license shorn of any reference to bride and groom. Couples getting married were now to be officially identified as ''Party A" and ''Party B." The department of public health proposed a similar rewrite of the state's birth certificate, replacing ''mother" and ''father" with ''Parent A" and ''Parent B." To that, Governor Mitt Romney objected, though it is probably only a matter of time until a court orders him to make the change. Meanwhile, others have gone far beyond Massachusetts in embracing the brave new world of unisex marriage. Last month, lawmakers in Ontario enacted Bill 171, stripping the statute books of all references to gender in connection with marriage. No longer do Ontario's laws use words and phrases like ''husband," ''wife," ''widow," ''widower," or ''persons of the opposite sex." And it is not just family and marriage laws that have been de-sexed. Bill 171 eliminates the traditional language of matrimony from more than 70 provincial statutes, including the Gasoline Tax Act and the Public Libraries Act. What is underway here is not simply a tweaking of legal terminology. The crusade for same-sex marriage has never been aimed merely at adjusting the familiar boundaries of married life to make it more inclusive. The real target is the significance of marriage itself the idea, fundamental to human happiness and all successful societies, that the purpose of marriage is to bring men and women together for their mutual welfare and for the protection and well-being of any children they create or adopt. It is that deeply ingrained belief that the marriage radicals are determined to do away with. One purpose of the official marriage Newspeak is to make such thoughts increasingly unthinkable.... What? No "Party C"? Why on earth not? See also David Warren, Mar. 6: .... Moreover, while bona fide "religious officials" may have some formal protection in law, the general body of the faithful now have none. Lay people who object in good conscience to such things as same-sex marriage, but have no "licence to preach", may soon find themselves obliged to hide their views, or risk prosecution for a "hate crime". Even those with such a "licence to preach" will find that it doesn't allow them to preach against sodomy from the pulpit. I know that this will be criticized as "alarmist". It is not. If you compare what is happening right now, with what was dismissed as alarmist less than a decade ago, you may detect the speed at which the revolution is moving. The new Ontario Act has, in addition to what it accomplished directly, made a powerful indirect contribution to that revolution, by identifying the very words that may, in the near future, be ruled discriminatory. The "spouse" who refers publicly to "my husband", or "my wife", is now saying something merely politically incorrect. But the grounds have now been laid, to make today's faux pas into tomorrow's criminal infraction. The Ontario legislation has moreover prepared the way for the federal legislation now being written. In the strictest legal terms, every existing marriage in this country is being redefined as a "gay marriage", in order not to discriminate against the few marriages that are same-sex.... Lane Core Jr. CIW P Tue. 03/15/05 07:16:17 AM |
The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved. |
Previous | Day | Next |