I want to marry my dog

I recently came to the conclusion that the left in this country is like the junkie who will look at everything but their addiction as the cause of their misery – but who still wants increasing amounts of dope. The closer we move toward a secularist society, the worse things get – but no one espousing that move will ever admit it. The problem is that, like the junkie, he or she isn’t the only one who gets hurt through their folly.

The issue of homosexual “marriage” really has me reeling. Really. The reason I use quotation marks should presently become apparent. If you hadn’t noticed, the issue of “gay rights” – “gay marriage” in particular – has been pushed into the forefront of the news lately.

The potential threat that recent developments (such as those in Massachusetts) portend have prompted members of Congress (including Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas) to revisit the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which states that, for federal purposes, marriage is between a man and a woman. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., has sponsored a constitutional amendment in the House that would define marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman.

The left knows it is in for a major fight. Inasmuch as the homosexual lobby has aligned itself with the left, so the appearance of “gays” as mainstream and the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on a national level is being wildly exaggerated in the media. Hence, homosexual “marriage” has become a high-profile issue. The left’s desperate sense of immediacy has even caused them to offend black leaders by likening the “struggle” of homosexuals in America to that of blacks.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people – religious and secular – who are being thoroughly deceived with regard to this issue, as represented by the mainstream media. In their view, the “right” of homosexuals to “marry” is being attacked by Congress, as opposed to the institution of marriage itself being attacked by the left. For the unpoliticized swing-voter type, it becomes easy to rationalize that what people do in their bedrooms, or in their households, is “their business,” and “who will it hurt”?

For the individual, high- or low-profile, the question of whether or not to take a stand on this issue comes down to how much derision one wishes to endure – as soon as one objects to any component of the homosexual agenda, of course, out comes the schoolyard invective: Homophobe! Bigot! Theocrat!

And then we roll over. No pun intended.

The reality is there is a difference between supporting the rights of individuals and being willing to go along with any and all fringe agenda for fear of being called some vile name. In the ’60s and ’70s, people who did not embrace any and all of the agenda the left espoused for ameliorating the injustices done to blacks were instantly branded racists. So they rolled over.

This resulted in blacks and other minorities being placed under the yoke of a form of slavery only slightly less odious than the one blacks lived under up until 150 years ago. The fact is that then, as now, what’s at work is not an interest in the rights of a group of people, but the opportunism of the left in advancing their designs.

The issue of “gay marriage” really has less to do with the attainment of a civil right as it does with changing the definition of marriage – much as the North American Man-Boy Love Association would like to change the definition of “consenting.” In actuality, a 6-year-old isn’t consenting simply because we say so. In actuality, people of the same sex can no more marry each other than I can marry an Irish Wolfhound.

The deeper truth is this: The issue of “gay marriage” has nothing to do with being “fair” to homosexuals. Laws addressing domestic partnerships would handily take care of that. The advancement of a secularist – Godless – agenda is at the core of these efforts.

It must be remembered that it is the left that is desperate. The issue of “gay marriage” is but an incremental move, part and parcel of the left’s plan to shift us into a self-indulgent, sensualist (and therefore easily-controlled) society – from the American Civil Liberties Union’s efforts on behalf of NAMBLA and excising “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, to Democrats’ attempts to effectively transfer legislative power to the judiciary. They know, given the social climate today, that if they do not ram every possible measure of secularism down our throats once and for all, right now – they likely never will.