You wouldn’t believe it, but sometimes even journalists of liberal newspapers can grasp elementary truths and inform their readers of the fact. This time, it has happened to the author of this article on the Boston Globe, the NYT-owned, surprisingly-still-alive “progressive” newspaper. The issue is, as so often these days, the so-called “marriage” of troubled souls.
The author of the article demolishes – from the left; which hurts in a special way – one of the mantras of the homo mafia: the desire to equate their “rights” with the civil rights battles of the Sixties and in particular, the idea that as interracial marriages were allowed, then “marriages” between (or one day, who knows: among) homosexuals should be allowed too. Let us see what Mr Jacoby has to say on the matter (emphases always mine):
When the Supreme Court ruled in June 1967 that Virginia’s law penalizing interracial marriage could not stand, it was not changing the fundamental and enduring meaning of marriage: It was affirming it. It was upholding the integrity of marriage by protecting it from irrelevant — and unconstitutional — racial manipulation. Virginia had interfered with the core elements of marriage in order to promote white supremacy, a value completely alien to marriage. Marriage is designed to bring men and women together; anti-miscegenation laws frustrated that design, and could not stand.
That this is nothing to do with an assumed right of perverts to have a legal recognition for their perversion is elegantly expressed in this way:
No one was a fervent proponent of gay* marriage 44 years ago this month when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that laws barring whites and blacks from marrying were unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage wasn’t even a fringe issue on June 12, 1967, the day the court handed down its landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia, invalidating anti-miscegenation statutes on the books in 16 states as “invidious racial discrimination . . . repugnant to the 14th Amendment.’’ If anyone had suggested to Chief Justice Earl Warren or his colleagues that in refusing to allow Virginia to continue perverting its marriage laws out of racial bigotry they were pointing the way to gay* and lesbian marriages, they would have found the claim unintelligible.
Pure common sense, you will say. Wrong. If you were a liberal, you’d be exposed to literature claiming that the changes brought about by that sentence are allegedly “incomplete” because so-called gay* marriage is still illegal in most American states (I kid you not; it is in the article linked), and the like. A tough job, being a liberal and trying to stay sane.
At this point, Mr Jacoby gets slightly more aggressive:
By now, of course, the idea that same-sex couples should have the same freedom to marry as interracial couples has become a favorite gay*-rights trump card. So has the view that opponents of gay* marriage occupy the same moral and legal swamp as the segregationists who thought Mildred and Richard Loving’s marriage should be a crime.
Apart from the use of that strange word, gay*, this could have been written by a conservative journalist. Oh-oh.
The core of the argument is in the following lines:
Same-sex marriage, too, interferes with the core elements of wedlock in order to advance an unrelated goal — the dignity and equality of gays* and lesbians. The fact that many decent people ardently embrace that goal doesn’t change reality: The essential, public purpose of marriage is to unite male and female — to bind men and women to each other and to the children that their sexual behavior may produce. It is rooted in the belief that every child needs a mother and a father. Gay* marriage, whether enacted by lawmakers or imposed by judges, disconnects marriage from its most basic idea. Ultimately, that isn’t tenable either.
Apart from the obscenely misguided idea that an anti-Christian perverted militant may be “decent” other than in his table or cocktail party manners, this hits the bull’s-eye. Note here that this isn’t an affirmation of the uselessness of such a legislation: this is an emphatic affirmation of its biological absurdity; something that no law or judicial activism will ever be able to change. Boldly, the author makes a claim that in a conservative writer would be considered triumphalistic and extremely reactionary: the so-called homo-marriage won’t last, because it’s too absurd to stand the test of reality.
The best part is for the end:
The old laws banning interracial marriage had a long run but they eventually collapsed. The new laws in New York and some other states authorizing same-sex marriage may be destined for a long run as well, but I suspect they too will likely eventually collapse. Marriage — male-female marriage — is indispensable to human welfare. That is why it has existed in virtually every known human society. And why it cannot be permanently redefined.
Congratulation to the Boston Globe for managing, even as liberals, to see the light now and then.
*”gay” = here: homosexual(s). Don’t ask me why.
Extremely interesting blog post from the “American Papist”, Thomas Peters. In his blog post, Peters point out to a clearly visible, but often not sufficiently considered reality: that the overwhelmingly liberal mass media greatly increase the feeling of inevitability of homo marriage by stubbornly ignoring their many defeats, and giving enormous space and “historic significance” to their very rare victories.
Stop for a moment and reflect what the liberal media (that is: the vast majority of the mass tv channels in the US and Europe, and the majority of mass newspapers) would have said if in the US there had been thirty popular consultation about the so-called homo marriages and the perverts had won all of them. And now please think that the reality is that they have lost them, all of them. It’s 31-0 for Christian values, and counting!
If this kind of results had been achieved by the other side, the call for the end of the debate would be deafening, and every opposer treated as an undemocratic nazi.
Or let us examine the legislative part of the battle, the arena where the homos try to transform their clear minority in the country in a majority by attracting representatives of the people ready to please them in exchange for favours. Well it turns out that this year they have already lost in Maryland and Rhode Island, and only won in New York; it’ 2-1 on the legislative front then, but there are at least other six states – let us count them: Minnesota, Indiana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa and Pennsylvania preparing themselves to reinforce marriage as the only…. marriage, or to reverse past decisions favourable to the homos.
Not persuaded yet? Look at a liberal state like California, where the homos have lost several times through either popular vote or law initiatives, and are now trying to overturn the people’s decision through an homosexual judge living together with his lover (or mistress, I suppose; or both; no idea what disgusting “arrangements” these people make).
Or perhaps you think that wherever homosexual so-called “marriage” legislation is passed, the situation is irreversible? Think again! Iowa and New Hampshire are two points in case, California is another example of sort (with the victorious Proposition 8 being the people’s answer to pink judicial activism). Wherever you look, people don’t sit and say “oh well, it had to happen I suppose”, but they react.
This, mind, even before the massive Catholic machine has been mobilised. If the US bishops started to say it as it is in a way that can’t be ignored, things would change in a matter not of decades, but probably of years, and the great risk for puppets a’ la Andrew Cuomo to be wiped out would soon let them decide that it is better for them to shut up like as many children when the headmaster enters the classroom.
Thankfully, in the United States more and more people are starting to understand what your humble correspondent has been saying from pre-blog times: homosexuality is the front line of the Christian war. Re-establish a Christian attitude to this, and abortion and euthanasia will be won on the momentum created by this recovery of Christian values.
Sad as it is to say so, too many people are still numbed to the atrocity of abortion, as – as they say in Italy – “the laws of one generation are the morality of the following one”. Not so for homo “marriages”. This is a battle that every Christian can fully grasp now and the re-discovery of his Christian values in one matter will unavoidably lead to a more mature reflection on all others.
Therefore, be in good spirit and wait for 2012, when pro homo representative and senators will hopefully get a pounding (these things can be pretty brutal, look here and tell me if you’d want to be in one of the pictures) and the people will wake up to the reality that they have the right to demand a Christian country and a legislation fruit of the will of the people rather than of judicial activism, or corridor politics. When the pendulum starts to clearly swing back in the US, it will only be a question of time before the same happens in Europe. At least in Southern Europe, where the ability of the Church leaders to mobilise the masses and shape future generations would still be very high, if they did as much as to wake up.
The recent events about the so-called “civil partnerships” give me the occasion to explain why I think that the Church in England is culpably marching toward complete irrelevance even on the rare occasions when she seems to show a couple of milk teeth.
Archbishop Peter Smith has criticised, in unusually (for him) strong words, the plans of this pagan Government to allow so-called “civil partnership” ceremonies to be held in churches. This would seem all in order, if the intervention of Archbishop Smith weren’t the signal that the Church is simply not doing enough, not even remotely, and that she is constantly shooting herself in the foot in the process.
What Archbishop Smith seems not to get (or doesn’t seem interested in getting) is that in a democracy religious freedom is never abolished overnight, but always through a process of continual erosion by which the last concession to the pagan world becomes the basis for the next one.
Take the so-called “civil partnerships”. If homosexuality is not criticised by the Church in the strongest terms, it is no surprise that calls for civil partnerships will, in time, emerge from this or that corner. Basically, the average politician is an institutional coward easily bullied by pressure groups and it is in the nature of democracy that he will tend to represent the opinion of these groups, however little numerically, unless he can expect equal or worse troubles from their opponents. It is only when the Christian mainstream starts occupying the ground and showing readiness for combat at an early stage, that the combat becomes superfluous.
But Peter Smith doesn’t declare war on active and militant homosexual behaviour (remember: less than half a percent of the population) and as a result he gets the so-called “civil partnerships”. These are the fruits of cowardice and in the bishops’ expectations – that to be silent on this problem wouldn’t create bigger ones – we see all the incompetence and naiveté of a Neville Chamberlain.
When you cave in once, it will go on. Once the homos have obtained so-called “civil partnerships”, they’ll start to make pressure to be allowed to have them performed in a church. But this will not be compulsory, they say now. You’ll be allowed to say “no”, they say now, so why be upset?
Then, it will go on. Once the principle has been accepted that two perverts have the opportunity to legally “unite” in a church (as it has previously been accepted that they may form “unions”; as it has even before being accepted that sodomy is all right), how simple must one be not to realise that it is only a question of time before the homos will cry “discrimination” against anyone who does not allow them to?
Then, it will go on. If homos are allowed to have a statutory recognition of their “union”, and to have this performed in a Church, why shouldn’t they be allowed to call this “marriage”? And why shouldn’t they think that it is their right to have this marriage performed wherever they please in order not to be “discriminated against”?
If you think that this is political fiction, think again. Our not-very-esteemed Prime Minister already talks of civil partnership as if they were families, as he has explicitly stated that his defence of family includes civil partnerships. He clearly even seems to consider abominations like sodomy and civil partnerships part and parcel of Western values. He has lost long ago the very notion of what Christianity is, of what it means to be a Christian, of what the Commandments are, of what the Sacraments are. The man is a pagan, full stop.
We see this pattern everywhere. Abortion legislation didn’t start as abortion on demand. Divorce was allowed only in limited cases. Homosexual behaviour was, at the beginning, merely decriminalised. You give the Pagans one finger, and you expect that they’ll not try to take the entire hand?
Therefore, Peter Smith has it all wrong even when it would seem that he has it right. He can’t hope that it be allowed to him to remain silent about the so-called “civil partnerships” and get away with it. His cowardice will persecute him by forcing him to fight later the battles that he didn’t have the guts to fight sooner.
More in general, the Church in England can’t hope – if the bishops really are in good faith, which can be legitimately questioned and which must be questioned at least in the case of Vincent “Quisling” Nichols – that to cave in to the popular mood about civil partnership will save them from the necessity to fight. The fight will come on them anyway, but in worse terms, on a more unfavourable battleground and with a rearguard battle. This is what happens to you when you think that you can betray Catholicism and get away with it and all the English bishops, bar none, are culpable of this cowardice (or worse, of this malice). Christian values must be defended loud and clear, on every possible occasion, from the start, and the bishop is the man for it.
Archbishop Peter Smith should spend his time continuously and vocally asking for the repeal of the legislation about civil partnerships. He should start to talk publicly and strongly about the abomination of homosexuality. He should wish for legislation criminalising sodomy to be reintroduced and boldly say so. He should say this loud and clear, insistently and without fear. A couple of years of the “Padre Pio treatment” and Cameron & Co. (cowards, remember, because politicians) would not even think of titillating themselves with proposals like the last one. The awakening of just one tenth of the Catholic population would be enough to have Cameron & Co. running for cover faster than a Taliban vehicle under the fire of a Gatling gun and swearing that he never, ever approved of homosexual behaviour.
Archbishop Peter Smith has, like all his colleagues bar none, shut up for too long. The time is coming when he will not be able to shut up any more, but at that point the Church will already be under siege by a pagan society it has appeased for too long, and forced to a battle that has not been prepared because there was no courage to choose to fight. At the same time when he – semel in anno – spends some words in defence of Catholic values he shows all the incompetence of the lukewarm, indifferent, cowardly but permanently smiling shepherds that four decades of institutionalised appeasement of secularism have given us.
The battle is clearly coming but you can’t fight a good battle with the Neville Chamberlains of the world. Let us hope that starting with the next Papacy (about this I have already lost every hope of meaningful improvement in the average quality of our bishops) new appointments will give us the leaders we need to fight the good fight against the dark forces of secularism.
We don’t need cowardly bishops. We need people willing to take out the Gatling gun, and use it every day.
Seton Hall, a Catholic University, has scheduled a course on so-called “gay marriage” (let us repeat it once again: homosexuals are not gay, happy people are gay; and they cannot marry, because they are of the same sex).
The unusual event (as the times are) is that this time the local Archbishop has reacted promptly and has asked the University to change its mind. The affirmation of the Archbishop (that the course be “out of synch”with Catholic teaching) is a rather big understatement but it gives the idea of what is happening anyway.
It turns out that the (Catholic, or so they say) University of Seton Hall is not impressed. Not only have they not done anything to backpedal, but the University has openly mocked the Archbishop by stating that they never had a problem with the course, though “it’s been a problem for, it seems, some people outside of it.” It seems. Some people. Congratulations.
The person chosen for this work of enlightenment of Catholic young minds is a Mr. W. King Mott. Predictably, Mr. Mott is an openly practising sodomite. He states that the aim of his course is to help the students to “gain an appreciation and respect for disinterested analysis that can be used to formulate an informed opinion”. Leaving aside the attempt at being intellectual, the implication here is that to share the Catholic opinion about the matter is to be 1) not informed, 2) biased and 3) disrespectful.
The “disinterested analysis” should come, instead, from a person already demoted in the past for defining the Church “prima facie homophobic” and an aged member of “homosexualist” groups. He is most certainly the man for a disinterested analysis, isn’t he?
Seton Hall lets it be known that there is “nothing” the Archbishop can do to prevent the course from taking place. They are probably right. Still, it would be nice if the Archbishop would obtain that this university is deprived of the right to call itself “Catholic”. One can be secular and homosexualist and will not be burned at the stake for that (not the times anymore, they say). But we should at least be spared the hypocrisy of such institutions pretending to be Catholic.