Friday, August 10, 2007

Any difference between GOP & Dems? Try this!

At a gay issues forum for Democratic presidential candidates sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and broadcast on Logo, the homosexual-themed cable network, candidates were enthusiastically supportive of the homosexual agenda. And this from the party that claims to have found religion in this election cycle. But how many of those gullible, left-evangelical voters are watching Logo anyway?

When questioned about her opposition to homosexual "marriage," CNN reports that Sen. Clinton responded, "I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions." She then clarified what she meant by that. Support for these civil unions is not an opposition to homosexual marriage, but a tactical way of making the country eventually comfortable with supporting it. "For me, we have made it very clear in our country that we believe in equality. How we get to full equality is the debate we're having."

Gov. Bill Richardson said the same thing in different words: "In my heart, I'm doing what is achievable, and I'm not there yet, and the country isn't there yet."

For Barack Obama, marriage and civil union are the same thing in the eyes of the law, and that is where he wants to take the country.
We should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word 'marriage,' which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given couples. My job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day-to-day basis for loving same-sex couples all across the country ... are recognized and enforced.
Substantively, an Obama administration would see no difference between the relationship he shares with Mrs Obama and homosexual best friends who have made legal commitments to one another, as though the pillar and fabric of society were only a matter of friendship, what you do in bed and social security entitlements, and not... well read my colleague, David L. Tubbs, in "Redefining Marriage Away," (City Journal, Summer 2004).

So let's be frank. We can take it as the unstated platform of the Democratic party that marriage should be between any two people regardless of their sex combination. That is, they are committed to reducing our understanding of marriage to whatever homosexuals share in their pairing relationships. Indeed, based on their particularly radical, post-modern understanding of equality (Clinton: "full equality;" Edwards: "I believe to my core in equality;" Kucinich: "real equality"), there is every reason to understand their party as committed also to bigamy, polyandry, incest, and...for the sake of good taste we'll stop there.

But we have no reason to think that these Democrats will stop even at the limits of our imaginations when it comes to redefining marriage and to the sort of disastrous social experimentation to which we have seen them obsessively committed for decades now.

Oh, and who in the Republican Party is holding us back form this mass civilizational suicide? Those vilified Christians! Someone has figured out something quite fundamental.


Camiseta Personalizada said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Why only two, do you think? Is there a principle at work or is this a way-station?

D.C. Innes said...

It is certainly only a way-station. That's where I was pointing (and to much worse) with the final words of that paragraph: "there is every reason to understand their party as committed also to bigamy, polyandry, incest, and...for the sake of good taste we'll stop there."
Thanks for reading. I hope that you find it interesting and thought provoking.