News Center

April 9th, 2013
 

Lest We Be Fooled

Last week was a tough one for conservatives across the country.  First, we had to endure the cat-scratching of the RNC over the incredibly misguided Growth and Opportunity Project report and then we had to feel the full heat of the media and hosts of now “hip” republicans cave in to the arguments made in front of the Supreme Court concerning the Defense of Marriage Act (national) and Proposition 8 (California).

I will get to the RNC report at another time, so I want to use this space to address the subterfuge of the string-pullers in the gay rights movement as they parade these two stalking horses in front of the sleepy justices who sit on the nation’s highest court.  You see, this whole thing is not about gay marriage at all.  It is about deconstructing marriage as an institution and threading an acceptance of the LGBT lifestyles into the fabric of American society.  The real issue in these cases deals with seeking and establishing 14th Amendment protections for those who follow the LGBT lifestyles.  When this is accomplished, the extended logical conclusion would be that any person who made disparaging comments about LGBT lifestyles would have committed a hate crime through “hate speech” and would be duly punished.

Imagine what might happen to ministers or anyone else for that matter who might offer that such behaviors cross a moral line that is unacceptable to them and their congregants.  Imagine what might happen to a religious institution that finds people who follow a particular lifestyle as being at variance with their religious doctrine.  It seems the logical conclusion one could draw is that 14th Amendment protections for those involved in LGBT lifestyles could lead to mandates similar to those surrounding abortifacients, contraception and health insurance.

Today, there are six protected classes of American citizens who benefit from the history of legal precedents associated with American traditions and the 14th Amendment.  Two of these classes—religion and military—have long been established in the traditions of the nation.  The other four—race, gender, disability and age—are based on primary characteristics.  Primary characteristics are those human features we can generally discern by visual examination—something we can see.  Following this logic, the only way to extend 14th Amendment protections to those in the LGBT lifestyles is if these behaviors are genetically mapped or otherwise discernible.  The science on this issue seems to be uncertain, and if one followed the arguments from plaintiffs, the issue argued was that these individuals, because of “love,” should be allowed to “marry just like opposite-sex couples.”What is it really?  Is this about genetics or about emotions?  The stronger case is genetics, but that is not the argument being advanced.

If LGBT adherents were genetically predisposed, then one must ask why a segment of the population that constitutes numbers less than one third of those who might be left-handed or one fourth the number who might be blue-eyed or one eighth the number who might be genetically predisposed to obesity should receive 14th Amendment protections when others are not even considered.  Certainly left-handers have more to bark about than most.  Thus, the argument must be about something other than genetic predisposition.

Opinion polls such as those conducted by Gallop indicate that Americans believe that up to 25% of the population might fit into the LGBT lifestyles.  This high level of socialization is probably based on the constant barrage of media attention paid to this topic.  Nearly every show on television has some element that deals with gay or lesbian lifestyles.  Even The Big Bang Theory has constant references to it as well as having a cross-dressing policeman as a neighbor before the affable Penny moves in across the hall from the super-geeks Leonard and Sheldon.  In reality, less than 4% of the population is committed to the LGBT lifestyles.  And if one examines census data, less than one percent of all households are same-sex-couple households.  This is a far cry from the 25% that is part of the “received knowledge” of the mainstream media.  To further make the case for traditional marriage, one should compare the economic situation of traditional and same-sex households.  Frankly, there appears to very little economically to support being in a same-sex household arrangement.

What we heard from attorneys arguing for gay marriage in the Supreme Court was that this is all about love—how one might feel about someone else.  This is an interesting argument when one wants to court to declare an institution that has stood the test of time—traditional marriage—to suddenly be dismantled and redefined based on an emotion.  Where does this argument lead?  If one wants to change the definition of marriage for just same-sex adult couples, what groups will feel compelled to seek further redefinition?  How arrogant of those seeking same-sex marriage equivalency to think that now that marriage might be defined as just between opposite and same-sex adults to think that this redefinition will not have some unsavory outcomes.  The logical extension of arguments is that redefining marriage as being a union between any two adults seems so limiting on the surface.  Why not make the definition a loving relationship among several adults?  Then, by logical extension, we would then have to overturn the 1878 Reynolds Supreme Court decision that defined marriage—wait for it—as being between a man and woman.  One better mark the wheel lest we not be able to tell when we have come full circle.

Dismantling marriage is one of the dual goals of this whole progressive effort.  If the gay rights movement can get marriage redefined, then there will be further inroads made to undermine one of the pillars of American strength.  Further, as the traditional family is about procreation, education, socialization and religious familiarization, that institution serves as a direct threat to the progressive movement’s aim of ridding society of God and coercing behaviors among those ruled in pursuit of the perfection of man through “progress.”  One should not be fooled.

Perhaps the most demoralizing aspect of all the media attention given this topic last week was the rush on the part of many so-called conservative republicans to embrace something that is clearly a deception.  The real goal is to normalize behavior that for many is aberrant and destructive.  Regardless of how one feels about such behavior (I am a bit more libertarian on this than most of my conservative friends), extending 14th Amendment protections based on behavior is flat wrong.  Besides, the marriage issue should be decided by the voters in each state, not by judges who feel compelled to apply the “penumbra of implied rights” not written into the nation’s Constitution or those of the several states.

Enhanced by Zemanta

About the Author

Sam Clovis
Sam Clovis is college professor, retired Air Force fighter pilot and former radio talk show host. He has been active in republican politics in Iowa for quite some time and is a highly visible and outspoken conservative. He has run for office in Iowa and remains a popular conservative figure.




blog comments powered by Disqus