THE NASSAU COUNTY, N.Y. district attorney has warned town clerks who issue marriage licenses that they will be arrested if they refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Already one town clerk in another county has resigned on principle. Same-sex “marriages” will be officially recognized as of July 24. It seems only a matter of time before individuals who do not support the law are indeed arrested given that there are hundreds involved in the wedding industry who object.

The recent news in New York is heartening. Rallies are scheduled in several cities to protest the new measure on the day of its enactment. Brian S. Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, told The New York Times: “The notion that you pass same-sex marriage and the issue goes away, that’s one of the biggest lies told by proponents for redefining marriage.”

The other lie is that opponents of same-sex marriage bear animus toward homosexuals as homosexuals.

                                       — Comments —

PDV writes:

I would like to know what you mean when you say it is a lie “…that opponents of same-sex marriage bear animus toward homosexuals as homosexuals.” I’m pretty sure I know what you intend to convey, but then how does one avoid following this up with a statement similar to New York Archbishop Dolan’s conciliatory note reported in the N.Y. Times, “We tried our best to insist from the start that our goal was pro-marriage, never antigay,” he wrote, adding, “If I have offended any of you in my strenuous defense of marriage, I apologize, and assure you it was unintentional.” It must have been strenuous indeed to have required such a disclaimer.

I’ve had several friends who were homosexual, and while I did not considered my friendship qualified by that fact, it was definitely limited. To the extent that they inhabited a world I would not enter and could not respond to as legitimate, there were lines I could not cross and disappointments unstated on their part. That was some time ago and the subject with little trouble could be avoided for the sake of the friendship. But twice, confronted on the subject, I was asked if I had any problem with it. In both cases I answered none at all. I will never judge St. Peter too harshly.  Cardinal Newman says somewhere that punishment follows sin as B follows A. Homosexuality is progressively destructive, spiritually eviscerating and inherently predatory. Lacking substance of its own, it must live off the good. There is no such thing as live and let live. I am still capable of being a good friend to any honorable person, and that includes homosexuals, but not their sexuality. Maybe somebody could say there is no animosity here, along the lines of loving the sinner but hating the sin, but I don’t think homosexuals would agree. I no longer care for the pretense of unflappability.

Laura writes:

The campaign against same-sex marriage is not motivated by personal animosity toward homosexuals. It is, however, motivated by animosity toward homosexuality. There’s no way of getting around that. Are these two statements in contradiction? Most people who oppose homosexual “marriage” are kind toward homosexuals themselves. The irony of the claim that hatred of homosexuals is behind the defense of marriage is that never before have homosexuals been accorded so much acceptance. Not that I think open homosexuality should be accorded acceptance.

There is rarely the possibility of strong friendship between someone who opposes homosexuality and someone who is actively homosexual. You mention being asked by a homosexual friend whether you had a problem with his being homosexual. In that case, I would have said, “Yes, I definitely do. I think it’s wrong. Have you tried to give it up?”

Dolan’s statement was irresponsible. Of course, the Church is anti-gay. It is anti-homosexuality. And his apology was outrageous. He has been forced to defend marriage. There is a big difference between my saying there is no animus toward homosexuals themselves and a leader of the Church making these self-abasing, confusing statements. 

Buck O. writes:

Being repulsed by gay men, or by effeminate men who aren’t homosexual isn’t something that I consciously intend or conjure up. It’s just how I react. I’m conscious that it happens. I can’t imagine healthy men not reacting. I don’t hate and would never consider being mean. I’m just, to varying degrees, repulsed. Isn’t this the way healthy men react? I’m not saying that it happens a lot, but it does happen. Am I odd? I don’t like what I feel, so I avoid or escape from it. Is that wrong? Or, am I supposed to change? Am I the problem? Isn’t that what we’re being asked to do? To deny a natural order of being? I am being asked to change and to repress or suppress my natural reaction to gaydom. There’s no avoiding that. We might as well get used to it. This isn’t going to end in our lifetimes – the institutionalizing of it. 

Before I went into the Marines in 1968, I found this nice, quiet restaurant/bar, a classier place than most that I frequented. It was a nicer place to take a date. It was just around the corner from the world famous Brickskeller. When I returned home a few years later, I got around to paying it a visit. I walked in with a woman. After a few steps in, it was clear to both of us that we didn’t belong. It felt to me as if I had entered an outlaw saloon wearing a badge. It was solid gay. The looks of hate or whatever was in their eyes, turned us around without a word. Have a nice day. 

Now, what I felt was… what? A conscious bigoted response to something that I was taught by a consciously bigoted society? A faked response to impress my girlfriend, who was faking her reaction to impress me? What was it? Why did we feel compelled to leave? Love to hear a modern liberal psychobabble that into knots. 

It was the perfectly natural reaction of a healthy man and woman. It was also the perfectly natural reaction of a room full of gay males. Anything else is politics and special rights machinations. Does anyone think that we should have stayed or that we should have been welcomed and asked to stay? Of course not – gays don’t think so and neither to healthy men and women. So who does, government? Tenured academics? What in the hell are we doing? 

A year or so earlier my girl and I and two couples walked into a place in Georgetown (DC), right in the heart of it’s most popular section. We were having a great time and not really paying attention to our surroundings. We just tumbled in off the street and sat right in the middle of the place. We were laughing and having a good time. No one came to serve us. After a short while, we realized that we were being pelted with ice. We looked around and realized that the whole place was gay. (I say “whole” place, as if their are “half-gay” places? Are there?) We were so involved with ourselves that we didn’t notice. All around was an upper mezanine from which the ice was being tossed down at our table. We left. No one said a word to us. Please, don’t leave. We’re just trying to break the ice…

Now. What do these two episodes tell me? I don’t belong there. Get out. Don’t come back. This is ours. Does that mean that gays are allowed to have “theirs,” to convert private property/businesses to their own exclusive use, by authority of some natural eminent domain law? Does that mean that the healthy population has the same right? Who gets to decide? Government?

Laura write:

Isn’t this the way healthy men react? I’m not saying that it happens a lot, but it does happen. Am I odd? I don’t like what I feel, so I avoid or escape from it. Is that wrong? Or, am I supposed to change?

Calling on men to disarm their normal reactions toward homosexuality is a form of forced effeminacy. Homosexual activists ask for sympathy and adamantly reject sympathy for the normal instincts of others.

Buck writes:

Similar to Islam, in this way, gaydom separates and insulates itself when and where it wants to and can, under it’s own rules and authority for it’s sole benefit and purposes, and pleasures. But, try to keep Islam separate from the West, or gaydom distinct within healthy society, and see what happens. Not a double standard, but a single, focused standard of exclusion or dhimmitude. They’re both incompatible, in a profound way, with their hosts and both demand that we accept them and make all the accommodations, which erode us. And, equally so, modern liberalism facilitates both of their principles of purpose and action.

Please follow and like us: