At Risk


On November 4, citizens of California were allowed to define the term "marriage." They were, specifically, faced with whether to affirm or to deny a right by same-sex couples to marry.  In denial of any such right, the majority voted to add the following words to the state's constitution:  "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.  Thus, "Proposition 8," as it was called, passed.

Now militant homosexuals are again protesting.  One of them, who had challenged the restricted and conventional definition of marriage in the California Supreme Court and prevailed on the issue last May, maintains that Proposition 8 was immoral.  He doggedly insists that the "rights of a minority shouldn't be taken away by a popular vote."  His insistence, of course, begs the question by already assuming the reality of the "rights" in question.

Where are such protests leading? Well, you guessed it:  straight to the door of the courthouse.  These sore losers are resorting again to the judicial process, this time to complain about the legality of the proposition.  Assuming procedural correctness, what can they say about the substance of it other than that it violates moral (or natural) law?  Hey, this is ironic, isn't it?  The Catholic Church invokes natural law in support of opposite-sex marriage, while  homosexuals are invoking it to establish  same-sex union.  At least three separate lawsuits have thus far been filed and are pending. Maybe after they are adjudicated, all citizens will be compelled on bended knee to affirm the priestly character of the California Supreme Court.  I will be the first to recommend that the Court's proceedings be conducted within a cloud of incense and that attorneys who practice before it be baptized with California "holy water."  

All jests aside, the tacit reasoning of these lawsuits, with their appeal to moral law, boils down to one simple political premise; i.e., that a vocal minority should be able to decide California's culture of marriage! 

Not surprisingly, homosexuals are engaging in vehement retaliation against those who supported the balloted proposition.  Andrew Pugno, a spokesman for the "Yes on 8" campaign, states that he has received innumerable emails from its supporters, who report threats against their families and themselves.  The comedic personality, Roseanne Barr, at right, has lashed out against African-Americans who supported the proposition, calling them "ignorant" and "bigots."  The director of the state's largest non-profit musical theater company has likewise been pressured by gay protests to give up his job. The Mormon Church is under vicious attack too.

You see, the homosexual lobby has learned that force and intimidation have served it well in America.  The American Psychiatric Association (APA) offers up a case in point.  In 1973,  it voted to remove homosexuality from its list of psychiatric disorders. The Association's stated rationale for doing so was that homosexual practice does not "regularly cause subjective distress" nor is it "regularly associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning."  Unpublicized in this "scientific" justification were the facts that an active homosexual and member of the Gay Activist's Alliance was on the committee that recommended the action and that militant gays repeatedly disturbed meetings, intimidated physicians, and utilized additional coercive tactics to have their way with the APA.  It was not exactly an unbiased and objective forum for pronouncing on the issue.

Yet coercion of the APA bought a major victory to homosexuals.  When a therapist resorts to the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the "DSM," he notes that there is a mathematics disorder, a written expression disorder and, yes, even an expressive language disorder. There may even be a disorder for blowing one's nose too hard, I have not checked. Yet nowhere in evidence is there so much as a word about a homosexual disorder.  Never mind that the risk of anal cancer rises astronomically for male homosexuals who engage in anal intercourse, that the ingestion of human feces in conjunction with this "alternative lifestyle" is a primary predictor of Gay Bowel Disease, and that there is no group of people in the United States other than practicing male homosexuals who die so frequently in their mid-forties of infectious diseases.  It should, moreover, go without saying that male homosexuality is closely correlated with the AIDS epidemic. One who bothers to consider these and other such "politically incorrect" facts may be tempted to investigate the suspect motivation underlying the APA's pro-homosexual stance.  It might strike future social historians as, well, "rather strange" that the timorous and coerced members of the APA could decide by majority vote an issue of so-called scientific fact, while many deem it immoral and illegal for the majority of voters in California to decide what constitutes marriage in the culture in which they live.

The American citizenry should be free to decide the definition of marriage in America. This issue is not one for the courts.  Why, pray tell, should a group of jurists, who learned in law school to construct and to memorize course outlines and to regurgitate them on written examination in subjects like torts, property, and contracts, think of themselves as peculiarly equipped to determine cultural issues for the United States citizenry?  It is a baffling question, which only the voracious appetite for power seems able to explain.

We Americans have reached another major cultural divide in our history.  Homosexuals, included as members of one faction, are resorting to intimidation and to violence.  Yet the moment is rapidly approaching when heterosexuals, counted among the ranks of the opposing group, will respond in kind.  When this comes to pass, many will be curious to see how our newly elected President and Congress respond to the crisis. Will they flout the will of the majority, or will they ride the political fence, nodding – as the cowards most citizens already suspect their elected officials are – in the direction of a United States Supreme Court not directly accountable to the electorate?

It does not take a genius to predict that, however this culture issue is finally resolved, the process will be painful and destructive and that Barack Obama and his Democratic Congress will stir the deepest levels of rage and resentment in at least half the American people.  The distant beat of war drums is increasing in volume.

November 15, 2008