Posts Tagged ‘same-sex’

Only Democrat Politicians, Activist Judges, And (Of Course) Beelzebub Support Gay Marriage

November 4, 2009

A snippet from The New York Times pretty much says it all:

Supporters of the [gay] marriage law, which the Legislature approved in May, have far more money and ground troops than opponents, who have been led by the Roman Catholic Church. Yet most polls show the two sides neck and neck, suggesting that gay couples here, as in California last year, could lose the right to marry just six months after they gained it.

Although Maine’s population is a tiny fraction of California’s and the battle here has been comparatively low profile, it comes at a crucial point in the same-sex marriage movement. Still reeling from last year’s defeat in California, gay-rights advocates say a defeat here could further a perception that only judges and politicians embrace same-sex marriage.

If Maine’s law is upheld, however, it would be the movement’s first victory at the ballot box; voters in about 30 states have banned same-sex marriage.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont allow gay couples to marry, but courts and legislatures, not voters, made it possible.

“It’s a defining moment,” said Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, which is leading the repeal effort. “What happens here in Maine is going to have a mushrooming effect on the issue at large.”

The people have now spoken thirty-one times.  And thirty-one times out of thirty-one times, the people have rejected gay marriage.

I think the gay activists have it right: only Democrat politicians and activist judges support gay marriage (I added the part about Beelzebub in my title, assuming that gay marriage advocates simply overlooked their biggest supporter).

These are people who care about democracy about as much as I care about liberalism: they actively despise it.

Gay activists used the most vile sort of intimidation tactics following their Prop 8 defeat in California.  They did the same thing in Washington state, targeting people who exercised their rights as citizens for boycotts, threats, and worse.

And, yeah, they have been trying to pick up the same fascist tactic in Maine.  And here’s what’s going on:

In addition to the fierce battle over the referendum itself, there has been another bitter fight: One over whether the names of the more than 120,000 people who signed a petition to get the referendum on the ballot should be made public.

On one side of the debate is Larry Stickney, the campaign manager of Protect Marriage Washington and one of the main people who got the referendum, known as Referendum 71, on the ballot. Stickney opposes releasing the names, arguing that doing so opens signatories up to intimidation and harassment.

In an interview, Stickney said he has been hit with “numerous death threats,” threatening phone calls in the middle of the night, and “obscene, vile emails” for being the public face of his cause.

“We’ve feared for our children’s lives,” he said.

Stickney characterized the people who signed the petition are “a bunch of little old ladies and nice people who go to church,” and said that “obviously we want to protect them from this kind of thing.”

He added that efforts to release the names amounted to a modern-day version of voter intimidation.

If I may wax philosophical for a moment.  The gay community practices a form of philosophical irrationalism, because they have abandoned the objective moral absolutes which have provided every other culture in history some semblance of moral order.  The eclipse of such moral absolutes has created an exclusive emphasis upon experience and subjectivity.

The problem of such moral irrationalism is that there are no longer any criteria for judgment.  If there are no transcendent absolutes by which one can evaluate experiences or beliefs, then ANY experience or belief can be invested with such transcendent meaning.  There is no basis for saying one idea is true and another false.  There is no basis for insisting that a particular moral principle – for example, that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, or, for that matter, that one ought not to murder Jews – is universally binding.

No culture has ever embraced homosexual marriage.

Homosexuals argue that their quest to impose gay marriage upon a society that clearly does not want it is a humanitarian quest for “civil rights,” and therefore good.  But when the wellsprings of irrationalism are released, human beings have a marked tendency to lurch to authoritarianism, violence, and self-destruction.  Just as homosexuals are proving yet again as they target law-abiding citizens for persecution.  The religious confessional doctrine of original sin accounts for the way that laudable ideals and noble-sounding goals can quickly turn vicious.

President Obama recently signed “hate crimes” legislation protecting gays in a bill that was ostensibly supposed to provide funding for our troops.  [This amounts to another proof that Democrat politicians are determined to impose their will upon the people, rather than allow their people to impose their will upon the politicians].

But the despicable reality is that if people need to be protected against hate crimes, it is the people who need to be protected FROM gays.

Advertisements