The sacrosanct family, you see, is the most under-attack institution in America. Who exactly is waging the assault is unclear.
Unclear, that is, if you heed Republican posturing such as that by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who is trumpeting a plan that purportedly would save the family by inserting an anti-same-sex-marriage provision into the U.S. Constitution.
Unclear if you listen to Stupidity Radio, where mega-ultra-moron Michael Savage (who recently got the bum's rush from MSNBC for telling a gay caller to "get AIDS and die") shuffles among homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics and liberals in selecting a scapegoat for the decline of the family and, in general, all of Western civilization.
Unclear, especially, if you read Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in the June 26 Supreme Court ruling that kicked government out of our bedrooms. The decision voided a Texas law that banned sodomy between homosexuals -- and struck down similar prohibitions in the 13 states of the Anti-Oral-and-Anal-Sex Belt. Not surprisingly, denying rights is an old game in the no-sodomy states -- 10 once embraced slavery, and all backed George Bush in 2000 (well, Florida probably did not go for Bush, but he ended up purloining the state's electoral votes).
Scalia -- who also has informally opined that government's power should not be questioned because it derives from God, and that the most civil liberties are not constitutionally protected -- concluded that the court's majority was embracing the "homosexual agenda." He fumed over what he prophesies will be an impending "massive disruption of the current social order." He fretted that there will no longer be any "morals legislation" and that the court's decision would open the door to unrestrained "bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity."
Sounds pretty scary, doesn't it? But let's calm down for a moment. What the court did was to say that consenting adults have the right to engage in private sex. The court didn't say people had to engage in homosexual acts. It didn't say people had to change their beliefs. The justices merely ruled that the Thought Police need to stay out of our bedrooms. That shouldn't be a big deal in a free society.
Scalia chose to evoke scare tactics and cite acts that have gone on through the ages -- notably, when gays and sodomy have been persecuted. He refuses to see the inanity of his own argument. Keeping gays down happened during the period when what he claims to fear most occurred. Gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than heteros. We don't need to buy a chastity belt for Fido. One correlation that is true -- but that Scalia and the Morality Gestapo don't mention -- is that sexual crimes decrease in societies where sexual repression is lessened.
His language is most reminiscent of the claims of earlier bigots that impending mayhem would follow the end of segregation. Scalia, however, isn't willing to accord gays "separate but equal" treatment -- as the Supreme Court did to blacks with the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case. Scalia and the Taliban wing of the Republican Party are dead set against allowing "normal" and "homosexual" to coexist in the same sentence.
It is, of course, completely illogical to conclude that the gay "agenda" threatens marriage. The war against holy wedlock has been waged by heterosexuals. I know. I've got battle scars.
On very rare occasions, a spouse leaves a marriage because he or she has acknowledged homosexuality. But over-over-overwhelmingly, it's straight spouses who cheat, who beat each other, who walk away from commitments. Adultery, probably the top reason marriages explode, is wholly a hetero province -- since, by law, gays can't be married and therefore are ineligible to commit legal infidelity.
And the one factor that's absent in the breakup of marriages -- or in the indifference to marriage by many straight people -- is society's growing acceptance of homosexuals as just plain folks who deserve the same protections and rights as everyone else.
Logic would say that if, as Scalia implies, there is a link between anything to do with homosexuals and the disintegration of the family, then the solution is to welcome gays into society's mainstream. After all, treating gays as less than normal coincides with the degeneration of marriage.
Another piece of supreme foolishness: The right wingnuts support marriage because stable family units are best for society. I agree. So, then, why prohibit a large minority in society from having stabilizing relationships?
@ MBlau ""They" would push for future referenda once this one is complete. (Every 4-5…
Cassie - the folks who at the start of the Beltline pipe dream were most…
I do not think soccer in Atlanta will be a giant success but I do…
@Burroughston Broch: "They" would push for future referenda once this one is complete. (Every 4-5…
"Weyandt told residents that City Hall wouldn’t simply tackle the worst problems first and work…