The licensing of
so-called homosexual and lesbian "marriages" in San Francisco only serves
to confirm what most of us have long thought and what was already manifest:
liberals have no regard for laws or authority, and will openly flout both
when it serves their purposes.
The fact that liberal activists hold morality, ethics, and even democratically
enacted laws in utter contempt is obvious to any objective, honest observer.
While disgusting, this truth does not interest me right now, and I will spend
no further time discussing it. At the moment, I find an analysis of
the issue from a political strategy perspective much more intriguing.
Astute commentators have already pointed out that the push for "gay marriage"
is being portrayed by its leaders and those sympathetic to the cause as a
classic oppressed versus the oppressor situation. These "gay rights"
crusaders have even had the unmitigated gall to compare their struggle to
the civil rights movement of the last century. It is worth pointing
out here that homosexuals and lesbians have never been forced to drink at
different water fountains or eat at different lunch counters than heterosexuals.
Nor have they ever been forced to give up their seats on buses, and they
certainly have never been enslaved or defined as three-fifths of a human
being. But none of that matters to the foot soldiers of the "gay rights"
Jihad. By putting their movement on the same level as the civil rights
movement, these people deliver a monumental insult to all those who fought
the good fight to gain equal rights for blacks and other minorities, and
to truly oppressed and downtrodden groups throughout history. But the
spin serves their purpose, so they go on with it. Whether or not they
truly believe their own propaganda, I don't know.
But that's not the point. The point is that in every society, there
is a minority class of people who are, for whatever reason, right or wrong,
discontent with the status quo. Clever and ambitious people have always
sought to harness this anger and dissatisfaction and use it to propel them
to prominence, sometimes out of a genuine desire to right a perceived wrong,
but just as often as a tool in their own pursuit of power. The "gay
rights" movement is no different, and the farcical representation of the
movement as a grand endeavor every bit the equal of Reverend Martin Luther
King's gives rise to the suspicion that members of that latter group are
present and active.
However, mainstream, high-profile liberals such as the Democrat Party's presidential
candidates have refused to take a firm stand on the issue. At first
this surprised me. Granted, John Kerry, as a rule, never takes a firm
stand on anything. But when I considered the situation more carefully,
I saw that the Democrats wishy-washiness is entirely understandable.
In fact, I should have expected it.
The Democrats stand to lose far more than they stand to gain by "coming out"
(forgive the heinous pun) in favor of "gay marriage." The fact is that
the majority of people in this country do not support the idea. Numerous
polls have proven this beyond debate. If John Kerry, for example, stated
clearly and publicly that he supported marriage rights for homosexuals and
lesbians (if you can't tell by now that this is a purely hypothetical scenario,
I'm telling you now), he would turn away many voters and gain far fewer.
Furthermore, he would give the Bush team a club to bludgeon him with in the
campaign and a bugle-call to energize their conservative base. (Something
the issue is already becoming, actually.)
Kerry knows this. Virtually all Democrat politicians know this.
Even the openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) has half-heartedly
condemned the idiotic act of "civil disobedience" in San Francisco.
The Democrat pols also know that they have nothing to lose by remaining uncommitted
on the "gay marriage" issue. The homosexual and lesbian lobby is going
to vote for them in every election no matter what, so they can continue to
Here's another totally hypothetical scenario: Imagine that the homosexual
and lesbian "community" got fed up and told the Democrats in no uncertain
terms that they were going to withhold their votes until the Dems made it
known that they were in favor of "gay marriage" and would fight for that
cause in office. Think of something along the lines of Al Sharpton's
rumblings about the Democratic Party and the black community. "The
Democratic Party has got to stop treating gays like a mistress."
Pause to consider all of the amusing implications and connotations of that statement before we go on.
What would the Dems do? Practicality dictates that they would have
to cut loose the homosexual and lesbian voters and take their chances rather
then commit political suicide. This illustrates another fundamental
truth about liberalism that other astute commentators have pointed out time
and again: liberals are afraid to reveal what they really stand for because
they know that to do so would destroy them. Howard Dean was the only
unabashed liberal in the field of Democrat presidential candidates, so he
had to go. A combination of his own boneheaded comments and his rivals'
attacks crushed his campaign, and its demise was then blamed on conservatives.
Like an abused attack dog, Dean snarls when he's been trained to snarl and
never stops to think that his real enemy might be the master at the other
end of the leash.
The fact that the Dems avoid the "gay marriage" issue like a leaking nuclear
reactor should give all of us reason to hope that the erosion of traditional,
Judeo-Christian values in America has not gone as far as we had feared.
We must make it our mission to see that those who despise the morals and
laws of this land never advance far enough into the accepted mainstream that
power-hungry politicians can safely use this issue to their advantage.
Dan Middleton is a freelance writer.