Skip to comments.The love that now dares you
Posted on 06/29/2003 7:32:53 AM PDT by Polycarp
The love that now dares you
Hugo Gurdon National Post
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
WASHINGTON - The destruction of marriage in Canada was announced with Jean Chrétien's usual insouciance. "You have to look at history as an evolution of society," said the Prime Minister, eating his cake and having it too. Without a fight he sweeps aside an institution more ancient than the history he invokes, yet asks to be treated as a spectator. "According to the interpretation of the courts, these unions should be legal in Canada." I've led the country for a decade, he suggests, but don't shoot me -- I'm only the piano player.
Looking at events from the American side of the border, the cartoonist Oliphant drew two Mounties at the altar. The officiating priest asks if anyone can show cause why the two should not be married, then sees Uncle Sam at the back and tells him to stay quiet.
The impression given is false, for although "gay marriage" is not yet legal across the United States, Americans who have not abandoned the traditional belief that homosexual coupling is unnatural or sinful, must increasingly conceal their feelings. Even those who believe neither of those things and regard gay unions as a private matter are now expected to silence their wish that it would stay private rather than be publicly flaunted.
A week before Mr. Chrétien sloughed marriage on to the ash heap, the U.S. Senate's judiciary committee considered President Bush's nomination of Alabama's Attorney General William Pryor to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Senator Russell Feingold asked Mr. Pryor, a devout Roman Catholic, whether it was true that he and his wife rescheduled a trip to Walt Disney World with their two young children because it would have coincided with Gay Day, an annual event there. (Disney ain't what it used to be).
In a tone suggesting that he believed he'd found the smoking gun, Sen. Feingold said: "News accounts also report that you even went so far as to reschedule a family vacation at Disney World in order to avoid Gay Day."
Mr. Pryor: "My wife and I had two daughters who at the time of that vacation were six and four, and we made a value judgment. And that was our personal decision ..."
Feingold: "Well, I certainly respect going to Disney World with two daughters. I've done the same thing. But are you saying that you actually made that decision on purpose to be away at the time of that."
Pryor: "We made a value judgment and changed our plan and went another weekend."
Feingold: "Well, I -- I appreciate your candor on that."
In other words -- Boy, he admits it and everything! Can you believe this guy? Has he no shame?
Maybe Sen. Feingold was merely being disingenuous in his repeated expressions of astonishment; one hopes so. But sadly he probably really believes the Pryors' decision was extreme.
So what is Gay Day? National Review Online posted links to pictures taken on that occasion in Disney's public spaces. In one, a man sucks on a beer bottle protruding from the unzipped trousers of another man. There were several other scenes like that. Are these appropriate for young children? Or for a decent, self-respecting society? When men and women are involved in such scenes, most people acknowledge them to be tacky. Spring break rarely passes without a few nose-held news accounts of the bacchanalia. In high school, if heterosexual students get shamelessly physical in public, their peers are likely to tell them to "keep it in your pants."
But criticism, or even a quiet personal decision to avoid contact with homosexual practice and culture is frowned on. Mr. and Mrs. Pryor's private decision brings down on their heads the implied accusation of bigotry. An upstanding and outstanding lawyer is pilloried in the supposedly august U.S. Senate for not subjecting his small children to scenes of homosexual debauch.
In Canada, Christian conscience is no excuse for refusing to print literature that promotes homosexuality. And Christian conscience will not excuse a small, family-run bed and breakfast if it chooses not to accept the custom of homosexual men who wish to share a bed.
It is becoming unacceptable in Western society -- in much of Europe, as in North America -- to live by the moral code upon which this civilization was built and has guided every generation except today's. Natural law, customs, mores, and the complex of arrangements arrived at down the ages by a sophisticated people are being demolished. That is what we mean today by tolerance. The love that once dared not speak its name, now dares you to speak your disapproval.
Hugo Gurdon is editor-in-chief of The Hill.
© Copyright 2003 National Post
Feingold: "Not that there's anything wrong with that.."
Chretien says what is, I think, the reason for all this evil. Social Darwinism, stemming from men-from-apes theory. If humans are only a small step away from animals, (or really ARE animals) and God doesn't exist (since everything is an accident, no Divine plan) then the only law is the law of the jungle - if it feels good, do it. The strongest animal wins. So even though homosexuals are only 2% of the population, they are controlling the rest.
Why? Because their unnatural, sickening depravity, which has throughout history been condemned (usually with death), symbolizes liberation from the laws of God. And this is universal religious law, not only Christian, but Judaic, even Islam in the Koran, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh.
I have a friend who stayed up late at night the other night, after she heard about the SCOTUS sodomy decree, in prayer.
Prayer, then hard work. Maybe this avalanche of evil will wake up the good people of the world to fight now.
Yup. And there will be hell to pay. We are no longer a moral God fearing people. Personally I no longer give a damn what happens to our country. And probably will stop voting. The commie have won. Time to stop playing.
Yet another visual I could do without.
Today is also "Gay Pride Day." I hope some of the outrageous antics of these people are videotaped and documented. NPR reported this morning that the "parades" will be especially "festive and naughty" this year because they are celebrating the bloody abortion the SCOTUS made of the Constitution (again) this week vis a vis "privacy."
I can tell you first hand just how true your statement here is.
Russ Feingold needs to be confronted - and I mean publicly, on television - about his implication that another man is a bigot because he didn't want to take his children to witness scenes like that. I doubt very much the judge would have changed his mind on the cancelled Disney vacation had he known it would be a man and a woman acting this out.
If you're not banned immediately for such apostacy, you'll be stalked incessantly by the cabal (with no consequences for the perpetrators, btw) until you're cowwed into silence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.