Monday, December 22, 2008

Gays still grumpy

Democrat Lanny Davis:
Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., has views on gays and gay marriage that are the extreme opposite from mine. Even more uncomfortable for me, Pastor Warren would impose his views on others - for example, by supporting Proposition 8 in California, passed by a small majority of Californians last November, which would ban gay marriage in California.
Recently, he seemed to go further - in the same sentence, he mentioned his opposition to gay marriage as well as "having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage ... [and] an older guy marrying a child."
That sentence was insensitive, hurtful and unfortunate.
I've hitherto refrained from commenting on the uproar over Obama choosing Warren to give his inaugural invocation, simply because everyone else was already saying so much. What is interesting in the uproar is what it reveals about the gay rights movement -- and especially the push for gay marriage -- namely that it is about acceptance.

Some progressive said about the choice of Warren, "It's a prayer, not a policy." All of Obama's appointments to policy positions indicate that he is enthusiastically sympathetic to the gay-rights cause. The symbolic pick of one of the nation's most popular pastors to give the invocation does not in the least disguise the fact that this will be the most pro-gay administration in history. And yet we have this continual uproar: The usual suspects are screaming "bigot," and Barney Frank is boycotting the inaugural.

None of this involves policy. What the gay community is saying is that Warren's mere disapproval of homosexual behavior puts him outside polite society. Disagreement with the gay agenda is not permissible -- the same attitude expressed by the protests at El Coyote. Is it any wonder, then, that this agenda cannot gain majority assent even in liberal California?

The California "enemies list" and other expressions of intolerance by the gay rights movement bespeak a totalitarian ambition, one that extends to punishing dissent, so that disagreement -- even by a minister of the gospel -- becomes a sort of thoughtcrime.

Gay heartbreak over Obama's evident refusal to play along with this totalitarianism ought to lead to a reassessment. Is social approval of your lifestyle so important that you must gain it by coercion? And if so, why?

1 comment:

  1. You know this entire prop.8 and "gay rights" movement has proven to be rather interesting to me, and not because of the actual issue of gay marriage.

    No, my interest comes from all the issues this entire debate has brought to light.

    First, as you said, is the fact that the gay activists don't want tolerance, they want acceptance. They will not be happy until not only every single state allows gay marriage, but each citizen therein actively cheers them on as they walk down the aisle.

    Second, the attack on the mormon church has resulted in previously hostile religious groups accepting them and in fact coming to their aid. What was once an ostracized church, has quickly become the darling of the social conservatives.

    Third, those who oppose prop. 8 also tend to support lax border policies. The refusal to enforce border policies has resulted in a fast growing population of socially conservative voters (at a time when those who are social liberals are barely reproducing). While the hispanic population was not as supportive of prop 8 as the black community, support was well over 50%. This doesn't bode well for the gay marriage proponents.