NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
SUNDAY SPECTATOR
October 1, 2006
No, not again!
If I had a nickel for every correspondent who has told me my opinions can be explained by the “fact” I am a closet gay, I would have earned five dollars by now. And the truth is they don’t know the half of it. For while I can’t remember ever having been sexually attracted to a fellow male, I have all kinds of tastes that are “classically gay”. I love Chintz, Spode, and opera divas. I don’t like sailor dolls, but I’m nuts about model ships. And according to my website, "I am fascinated by seeds, small shells, tiny fishes, and insects."I also have many "gay", and even a couple of lesbian friends. Have long had, for I have long been an “artsy”. Don’t think I’ve ever met a genuine bisexual -- unless it was Pierre Trudeau -- and I’m not even sure I know what “transgendered” means. Nor am I particularly curious to find out. What people are, is none of my business, until they make an issue of it. Among things I have in common with all of my gay and lesbian friends, is implacable opposition to same-sex “marriage”. (But then, most of my Muslim friends are Bush fans.) I’m aware there are many on the other side -- I get to read all about them in the papers -- but it wouldn’t surprise me to learn, by some honest poll, that support for same-sex “marriage” is actually lower among homosexuals than in the “straight” population. This would not only suit what I call “the iron law of paradox”, which holds that nothing is ever quite as it appears. It would also make sense, because people who are themselves homosexual are forced to think more deeply about such things. Not all, of course. Many homosexuals are shallow, as many in any population sampling; and they don’t think about the consequences of their acts or opinions. Take, for example, two gay acquaintances who availed themselves of the Canadian state’s same-sex “marriage” provisions. The dominant partner wanted to make an in-your-face statement. I would describe him as outwardly more “gliberal” than homosexual, his only public “gay” trait being an intense misogyny. He also wanted to make a statement “against Bush”, but the state has still not created a public ceremony for that. The “gay statement” having been made, the “marriage” soon cracked up. Or as a certain wag put it (himself an homosexual), “The only possible advantage to gay marriage was that it would spawn a TV show called Gay Divorce Court.” The subject is returning to us again, with the impending Parliamentary review of the same-sex “marriage” provisions of the last Liberal government, and I am hardly the only person who dreads it. During my run of more than a dozen columns against gay marriage, when it first became a major issue the year before last, I was given no end of trouble (I won’t go into it), and only persisted because few other journalists in Canada were willing to make the stand. I got zero public support from the innumerable people who privately assured me they were on my side. No one spoke up when my views were maliciously misrepresented. Many, even in the media, were quietly opposed to same-sex “marriage”, and the people at large were opposed, but the level of intimidation offered through everything from peer pressure to “human rights” tribunals was sufficient to keep that opposition mute. The proponents of same-sex “marriage” were able to cast the non-debate in cheap “rights language”, which gave them the advantage of accusing anyone who opposed their social revolution of being “anti-gay”. It was a bluff, a huge lie, but it certainly worked. The proponents were even able to wangle an amendment to the Canadian Criminal Code, that made “homophobia” a crime akin to genocide. (The mark of the tyrant is the act that makes opposition illegal.) This time around, I think it is urgent to call the big bluff. Same-sex “marriage” is not about homosexuals, nor even about homosexuality. It is a wedge being driven into our social order, by its mortal enemies. Their intention is to destroy the nuclear family that is the foundation of that order; same-sex “marriage” is merely a means. Their ambition is to remove all such categories as “father”, “mother”, “husband”, “wife”, “offspring”, first from the law and tax codes, and eventually from everyday life. Everyone with a stake in the future of our children must resolutely oppose them. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top