What Do The Secularists Expect From Us?
By Patrick Tepoorten
On March 31, The Minnesota House of Representatives, by a 77 to 56 vote, passed legislation that will bring the subject of same sex marriage before state voters in 2006. The state senate, which is in the control of Democrats, is currently active in stalling the legislation. Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, who is contemplating a run for governor, threatened earlier this year to also call for ballot questions on universal health care, and state run casino's, if state Republicans push for the same-sex marriage ban. Numerous other state Democrats, like Matt Entenza and Michael Paymar, are busy criticized the effort as well.
However, while their remarks on the issue are directed at the legislation itself, it is hard not to get the impression that they are opposing the very spirit of democracy. How can their opposition be viewed as anything less than opposition to the very tenets of self-government? Are we to believe that they would feel the same way if they were confident an amendment protecting traditional marriage would be rejected?
The arguments made by supporters of gay marriage remain less than convincing. Is it a civil right? There is little evidence that it rises to that serious level. Columnist Thomas Sowell put it best when he said "Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that."
Is there an effect on a given overall society when it offers same sex marriage? Data from Scandinavia would seem to suggest a negative impact. Fair minded people would call the effects of gay marriage on society ambiguous at best.
The bottom line is that many of the concerns surrounding gay marriage remain unanswered in any definitive way. Given that it is the gay lobby that is asking for change, it is incumbent upon them to show that the effects of that change will not have a negative impact on our society. So far, they have been unable to do so and, in fact, have for the most part given up trying.
Rather than submit their ideas for honest and thorough debate, they have instead chosen the hysteria route. Demonizing opponents as homophobes or theocrats, fascists or religious zealots. They have discarded the will of the voters in California in exchange for their own selfish desires. In Minnesota, those tactics may have an influence in the voting booth, if and when it comes before them next year.
Samuel Silver recently described the mind-set of secularists that led to their spiteful approach to the gay marriage debate. "Secularists truly believe religious people are ignorant, intolerant, homophobic, racist, and generally dangerous; so they believe it is only “social justice” to destroy any public acceptance of the religious worldview, even by undemocratic means."
Rather than show patience and a willingness to embrace the views of those who disagree, with an eye towards reaching some equitable compromise, they have instead demonstrated nothing but contempt. Anyone who dares hold a different view is held up to ridicule.
Of course, in order for gay marriage to flourish in our country, the same people who have been routinely insulted by secularists are expected to somehow see through the hateful rhetoric and "do what's right" for the gay community. Did I miss something? I don't recall the gay lobby ever holding itself to that same standard as they have stomped all over state law, demonizing anyone who dares hold a differing opinion. I'm honored that secularists seem to hold conservatives to a higher standard than they do their own base, but I ain't buying.
I have spent a great deal of time in the political trenches as of late, debating this issue with supporters of gay marriage. My support for gay adoption and civil unions, coupled with my opposition to the National Defense of Marriage Act has not usually been enough to escape the "right-wing fascist homophobe tag." Either you support gay marriage, or you are part of an increasingly vilified sect of society clinging to an ancient belief in a deity that doesn't exist. That fact alone seems to immediately disqualify any individual from the debate. In essence, the only people the left sees as qualified to debate the issue is other secularists.
And that is the essence of the gay marriage debate. Proponents essentially propose an ultimatum. You are either a supporter of gay marriage, or you are a weak-minded caveman clinging to bigotry. The people who should have spent the last four years explaining their position in a reasonable manner have instead chosen to vilify opposition, bully their position, and shame America into supporting gay marriage. When the chance arrives next year for Minnesotans to cast a vote on the issue, the result could be just as much a reflection of the left's tactics as it will be a reflection of actual attitudes towards gay marriage.
Don't get me wrong, the majority will most likely vote to protect traditional marriage as has been done in so many other states recently, which is why state Democrats are working so hard right now to stop that vote from taking place. But that vote may come with an additional element that the gay lobby never considered. Roughly 80 percent of this country describes itself as Christian. Whatever one might think of gay marriage, there are not too many Christians who would approve of the shameless tactics used by the gay lobby to garner "support" for their pet issue.
Voting to protect traditional marriage in Minnesota will not only be an opportunity to voice an opinion on the future of marriage in the state, it will also be a chance to send secular America a strong message. If it is support they want, it should be support they seek. Calling the majority of America vile names and discrediting their position as a religious phobia doesn't really inspire anyone to support gay marriage, does it? However, it does inspire a strong desire to see them fail. Given that gay marriage is such a touchy proposition on it's face, one would have thought someone, anyone, on the left might have considered that.
Patrick Tepoorten
On March 31, The Minnesota House of Representatives, by a 77 to 56 vote, passed legislation that will bring the subject of same sex marriage before state voters in 2006. The state senate, which is in the control of Democrats, is currently active in stalling the legislation. Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, who is contemplating a run for governor, threatened earlier this year to also call for ballot questions on universal health care, and state run casino's, if state Republicans push for the same-sex marriage ban. Numerous other state Democrats, like Matt Entenza and Michael Paymar, are busy criticized the effort as well.
However, while their remarks on the issue are directed at the legislation itself, it is hard not to get the impression that they are opposing the very spirit of democracy. How can their opposition be viewed as anything less than opposition to the very tenets of self-government? Are we to believe that they would feel the same way if they were confident an amendment protecting traditional marriage would be rejected?
The arguments made by supporters of gay marriage remain less than convincing. Is it a civil right? There is little evidence that it rises to that serious level. Columnist Thomas Sowell put it best when he said "Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that."
Is there an effect on a given overall society when it offers same sex marriage? Data from Scandinavia would seem to suggest a negative impact. Fair minded people would call the effects of gay marriage on society ambiguous at best.
The bottom line is that many of the concerns surrounding gay marriage remain unanswered in any definitive way. Given that it is the gay lobby that is asking for change, it is incumbent upon them to show that the effects of that change will not have a negative impact on our society. So far, they have been unable to do so and, in fact, have for the most part given up trying.
Rather than submit their ideas for honest and thorough debate, they have instead chosen the hysteria route. Demonizing opponents as homophobes or theocrats, fascists or religious zealots. They have discarded the will of the voters in California in exchange for their own selfish desires. In Minnesota, those tactics may have an influence in the voting booth, if and when it comes before them next year.
Samuel Silver recently described the mind-set of secularists that led to their spiteful approach to the gay marriage debate. "Secularists truly believe religious people are ignorant, intolerant, homophobic, racist, and generally dangerous; so they believe it is only “social justice” to destroy any public acceptance of the religious worldview, even by undemocratic means."
Rather than show patience and a willingness to embrace the views of those who disagree, with an eye towards reaching some equitable compromise, they have instead demonstrated nothing but contempt. Anyone who dares hold a different view is held up to ridicule.
Of course, in order for gay marriage to flourish in our country, the same people who have been routinely insulted by secularists are expected to somehow see through the hateful rhetoric and "do what's right" for the gay community. Did I miss something? I don't recall the gay lobby ever holding itself to that same standard as they have stomped all over state law, demonizing anyone who dares hold a differing opinion. I'm honored that secularists seem to hold conservatives to a higher standard than they do their own base, but I ain't buying.
I have spent a great deal of time in the political trenches as of late, debating this issue with supporters of gay marriage. My support for gay adoption and civil unions, coupled with my opposition to the National Defense of Marriage Act has not usually been enough to escape the "right-wing fascist homophobe tag." Either you support gay marriage, or you are part of an increasingly vilified sect of society clinging to an ancient belief in a deity that doesn't exist. That fact alone seems to immediately disqualify any individual from the debate. In essence, the only people the left sees as qualified to debate the issue is other secularists.
And that is the essence of the gay marriage debate. Proponents essentially propose an ultimatum. You are either a supporter of gay marriage, or you are a weak-minded caveman clinging to bigotry. The people who should have spent the last four years explaining their position in a reasonable manner have instead chosen to vilify opposition, bully their position, and shame America into supporting gay marriage. When the chance arrives next year for Minnesotans to cast a vote on the issue, the result could be just as much a reflection of the left's tactics as it will be a reflection of actual attitudes towards gay marriage.
Don't get me wrong, the majority will most likely vote to protect traditional marriage as has been done in so many other states recently, which is why state Democrats are working so hard right now to stop that vote from taking place. But that vote may come with an additional element that the gay lobby never considered. Roughly 80 percent of this country describes itself as Christian. Whatever one might think of gay marriage, there are not too many Christians who would approve of the shameless tactics used by the gay lobby to garner "support" for their pet issue.
Voting to protect traditional marriage in Minnesota will not only be an opportunity to voice an opinion on the future of marriage in the state, it will also be a chance to send secular America a strong message. If it is support they want, it should be support they seek. Calling the majority of America vile names and discrediting their position as a religious phobia doesn't really inspire anyone to support gay marriage, does it? However, it does inspire a strong desire to see them fail. Given that gay marriage is such a touchy proposition on it's face, one would have thought someone, anyone, on the left might have considered that.
Patrick Tepoorten
5 Comments:
i just think it is funny that the author finds discomfort when faced with pro-gay opposition, when the gay are faced with people holding "God hates fags" picket signs everytime they turn on the television. It's not like he goes home to the world marching against him.
The gay community has been taking the barbs of the right and the religious for an eternity, now they cry fowl if anyone says that their tactics are based on hate and ignorance? You got to be kidding? The right seems upset that a minority would stand up for itself and call to task a hypocritical right.
They also hide behind the church, well the church has supported slavery, fought against equal racial and religious rights, fought interacial marriage and more crimes against humanity, possibly more than any other organization in history. With a track record like that, i'm surprised anyone is looking at the church for moral guidance.
This is a classic "straw man" argument- you're attacking a position that the people you speak of don't really hold. What you identify as the secularist agenda of the "gay lobby" may be the position of a few vocal extremists, but you ignore the huge number of gay marriage supporters who are Christian or otherwise very religious, and those like me who support equal rights for GLBT people but are otherwise conservative.
Marriage is not a Christian religion vs. non-christian issue. The institution of marriage existed in law long before Jewish and Christian religions began. Marriage is about joining a man and a woman in a biological union that creates and supports the next generation of the society. The future of society and the safety of the children are as important to non-Christians as to Christians. It is wrong and misleading to cast the discussion into religious vs. non-religious terms. It's not "sexularists" who support the destruction of marriage and Christians who support it. Families, children, and the social institution which creates families and provides for children ought to be a concern for all people regardless of their religious faith or lack of religious faith.
It is incorrect to label all 'secularists' as gay rights types.
Secularism was originally a term for a philosophy that left a space for those who could not in good conscience conform to a religious denomination, and could not see why they should be forced to adopt a religion to have an influence in public life. They did not want special privileges for religions which often have ridiculous doctrines. They pointed out that religions came into conflict due to disagreement about articles of 'faith'.
Secularisn is in fact a protector of religious freedom, as it prevents one religion imposing itself on the rest. It is a neutral arbiter between them, thus Islam, Catholicism, Thuggism*,State Shinto**, Scientolgy, Mormonism are prevented from imposing themselves on the rest of society.
One of the oldest secular institutes in the world , certainly the oldest in UK, is in Leicester, England. This Victorian buildinghas a line of busts of secular 'heros' above the front porch. One of these is Jesus Christ, because they saw him as opposing religious bigotry and hypocrisy in his time.
*The Thuggies, originators of the term thug, were an Indian religion suppressed by the British.
** State Shintoism wa`s a violent japenese reigion suppresed by the USA after the war.
Post a Comment
<< Home