Daily News Shots, 03/09/2010

The tiny, tiny town of John Day in Oregon (a largely white, conservative community where some are members of the Tea Party) has begun to fight the efforts of the Aryan Nations groups to move in and set up camp. Public protests have given way to restaurants refusing to serve members, stores refusing to serve members, and landowners refusing to sell to members in an effort to make them as unwelcome as possible. Keith “Damn Those Racist Tea Partiers” Olbermann has not commented.

New York Representative Eric Massa resigned in the wake of a “scandal” regarding a drunken comment made at a New Year’s Eve wedding reception to a staffer: the staffer told him he should be chasing the bridesmaids, Massa said “I should be effing you,” and stumbled away. Democrats feigned shock and outrage over Massa’s comment and demanded the resignation. Steny “We Can’t Handle the Truth” Hoyer adamantly denied today that the call for Massa’s resignation had anything at all to do with the fact that Massa has staunchly refused to support Demcare no matter what “offers” he gets (Louisiana purchase, anyone?). At press time, Democrats still wanted to see Clinton prosecutor Kenneth Starr horsewhipped and hung with piano wire.

Lindsay Lohan is suing E-Trade for supposedly modeling one of their baby trader ads after her. Apparently, she believes she shares first-name recognition along the lines of Madonna and the ad in which the famed baby trader apologizes to his girlfriend via video chat is claimed to have been a catty swipe at the actress deserving of a $100M payday. In other news, Paris Hilton still thinks she is a legitimate role model for young girls.

Finally, Republican California State Representative Roy Ashburn was arrested for DUI and it was discovered that he had gotten wasted at a gay bar. He came out and admitted that he is gay. Liberal gay-rights groups, which have condemned him for his voting record, have already announced the expectation of a more friendly Ashburn. We are still awaiting the “self-loathing closet case” accusations.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Daily News Shots, 03/09/2010

  1. “Family Values” California state senator representing Kern County, Republican Roy Ashburn (guess how he votes on gay issues?), goes to a gay bar near the Capital, picks up a scantily clad buddy, gets drunk, drives and receives a DUI. In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”. They are good at “Follow the Leader”. They listen to their dullard leaders Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards. The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim that government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although most republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe they have a long way to go. I guess Ashburn is the first on the list “2010 Republican Summer of Love”. Remember last year list of “2009 Republican Summer of Love”: state assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), SC Board of Ed Chair, Kristin Maguire (AKA Bridget Keeney). Do I hear Tammy Wynette, “Stand By Your Man” playing in the background? I remember not so long ago that other Orange County song favorite, “Stand By Your Tan” (for Tan Nguyen). But that’s another Orange County fool.

  2. .LOOKING FOR LOVE IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES: GAY CONSERVATIVES IN 2010.

    –Robert Klein Engler

    As the nation gears up for the 2010 election cycle, many gay conservatives are wondering about their role in the body politic. They are asking an important question: “How can we extricate ourselves from the swamp of communism and secularism?”

    It’s ironic, but gay conservatives often live in a closet within a closet. They have to take the risk of coming out not only socially but politically. Unwilling to be rejected twice, many just stay in the political background.

    Likewise, many gay small business owners who run hair salons, florists, antique shops and gay bars may not voice their conservatism, but it is often below the surface. They want lower taxes and less government red tape.

    Gay conservatives are also a rare species for political watchers. Many political watchers have never seen one. The fusion in their eyes of “gay” with what Dick Houtman calls “Marxism Lite,” has blinded them.

    Pam Chamberlain thinks gay conservatives are the “Unwanted allies on the Right.” Yet, many gay conservatives vote Republican, own businesses, want lower taxes and a strong national defense. They are embarrassed by the antics of Act Up and some Gay Pride Parades.

    Gay conservatives have spiritual needs, too, and resent the attacks on religion by the secularists. Many do not want all the attention that comes with a push for same-sex marriage. In short, gay conservatives want to be left alone by big government and small minds.

    the formative 50s

    Events that happened in the 1950s still reverberate in the lives of gay people, today. It was in 1958 that the word “homosexual” was first used in an English translation of the Bible as an questionable translation of the Latin “masculorum concubitores.” Also, in the 50s, the first gay liberation group in the United States, the Mattachine Society, was formed.

    These events in the 50s have led to two unfortunate developments, today. The use of the term “homosexual” in translations of the Bible has misled some Christians into believing that gays are a special type of sinner. Likewise, the early association of the gay liberation movement with communism has kept most gay groups outside the mainstream of American politics.

    The Latin and Greek terms in scripture that give rise to the English word “homosexual” in some Biblical translations are uncertain in their meaning. Biblical scholars have also pointed out that an understanding of the social context in which scripture was written helps us understand better what these Greek and Latin words mean.

    Yet, even with social context taken into consideration, from the time of the Talmud forward, the Rabbis held that “a man lying with a man,” mentioned in Leviticus, refers to anal intercourse. It’s important to remember, however, this reference in Leviticus is an injunction against doing, not against being. Furthermore, it speaks more to sex than to love.

    Even with this act forbidden in the Bible, forbidden as much as adultery is forbidden, there is still room in the house of morality for a same-sex, loving relationship. Our generation and the church carries the burden of restoring this room and opening the windows to the fresh air of truth.

    If the burden of religion was not enough, gay conservatives also have to dal with the burden of Marxism Lite. The early association of the gay liberation movement with communism has led many gays to believe they are an oppressed proletariat deprived of their rights. Neither of these beliefs are accurate in America, today.

    In the 50s, when Harry Hay, along with a group of Los Angeles friends, decided to form the Mattachine Society, he did so to protect and improve the rights of homosexuals. “Because of concerns for secrecy and the founders’ leftist ideology, they adopted the cell organization of the Communist Party.”

    Ironically, for Hay’s group, Many Marxists consider homosexuality a product of capitalism. Their view is that when capitalism disappears, so will homosexuality. So, the Communist Party in Hay’s day wanted nothing to do with homosexuals. They threw Hay out of the party, not for being gay, but because he was a “security risk.”

    Gary Leupp demonstrates this same homophobia, today, when he writes, “The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), leading what many have considered the most advanced Maoist movement in the world for the last decade, has recently been accused of attacks on gay people and of indulging in antigay rhetoric.” At best, for Marxists, gays can be used as cannon fodder to achieve a people’s victory.

    Gay people in America should know that Marxist politicians and progressives are not “on the right side of history.” They support the gay agenda until they get power, and then they dump their gay allies. This rejection happened with Hitler and National Socialism. It happened in Russia with Stalin and in Cuba with Castro. It may happen in the United States with Obama.

    The lesson from history is that Marxists and leftists are not interested in social justice for gays but only in their own power. Everywhere gays have aligned themselves with the Left or National Socialism or Marxism, they have been the losers. Gays are safe only where a constitutional conservatism prevails.

    In light of this ingrown homophobia on the Left, it is all the more ironic why some gays have so often attacked religion. How easily they forget that during the AIDS crisis it was the Catholic Church that was one of the groups at the forefront of ministering to the sick.

    To point out the Church’s ministry, however, is not to overlook the debate in Catholic circles on the theological questions raised by the issue of sexual orientation. As this debate continues, it is good to remember, “Charity begins at Rome.”

    politics and practical policies

    Translations of the Bible and the communist influences on the early Mattachine Society are significant events, but they are not sufficient to explain how a movement for gay acceptance ends up in the 21st century as a movement that attacks Christianity and advocates the overthrow of traditional marriage.

    To understand how we moved from then to now, how the present generation of gays sees itself as victims denied “equality,” we have to look at other social phenomena. Chief among these are the black civil rights movement of the 60s, the AIDS epidemic of the 70s, the women’s reproductive movement that includes the legalization of abortion, and the rise of divorce in America.

    Taken together, all of these changes in society have created an environment in which the gay rights movement took root and flourished. Other writers may document the weaving together of these strands, but for our purposes it is enough to note the movement for same-sex marriage represents a distortion over time of what is considered to be a “right.”

    The gay rights movement also demonstrates a descent of the political idea of equality into the swamp of sameness. What should have stopped with the repeal of sodomy laws may end with a secular state that abolishes traditional marriage. These distortion happens because like all theory driven movements, gay liberation can never impose its ideal on reality.

    Much of the political discontent felt in contemporary, liberal America stems from a hope in theory rather than reality–they hope to get from politics what politics cannot give. This is especially true of some minorities and gays. Contrary to a Marxist, theory driven movement, gay conservatives, like most conservatives, have a practical wisdom that tells them when to stop.

    Two millennia ago Aristotle argued that politics was not a theoretical science, but a practical one. We can never know what is theoretically the best course of political action. Even the best policies have unintended consequences. To expect absolute truth from politics is to be immature or captured by the throes of Marxist and queer theory.

    The goal of freedom for gays that queer theory offers, dressed as it is in the feathers and sequins of Marxism Lite, is really an illusion. Instead of opening up being gay to multiple meanings, queer theory straps gays into another straightjacket, this time worn in an alternative universe of gender gnosticism.

    same-sex marriage and then some

    Today, many Christians and gays look at one another with acrimony across the divide of same-sex marriage and wonder what to do. The task of gay conservatives is to help bridge that gap with practically wise policies that take steps towards reconciliation.

    The first step is a move back from the same-sex marriage debate. It is not worth the time or effort of gay conservatives to further same-sex marriage. The campaign for same-sex marriage is poised to end, as a Spanish friend remarked, like a campaign to prohibit drinking alcohol in Spain: a Don Quixote struggle against gin mills.

    The campaign for same-sex marriage began nine months after the Stonewall Riots. “On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota gay student activists, Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis.” The county district court clerk denied the request on the grounds that the two were men.

    Various law suits were filed. Finally, on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal to allow same-sex marriage in Baker v. Nelson. They did so “for want of a substantial federal question.” Since then there have been numerous attempts to achieve same-sex marriage by court rulings or by legislation.

    In a calculated way, Marxists will support gay marriage because they know it will help to undermine all marriage. As Toronto writer Marusya Bociurkiw understands it, “Marx and Engels were decidedly gloomy on the topic of marriage. According to them, marriage is a property relation, with its roots in slavery. It’s perfectly designed to work with capitalism.”

    If carried too far, the demand for same-sex marriage can actually become reactionary. “Same-sex marriage, from a Marxist perspective, isn’t just a one-way deal: lesbians and gays get protection and legitimization from the state. The state benefits too. In other words, same-sex marriage plays into the hands of a government hell-bent on privatizing everything from pension plans to healthcare.”

    How much more confusing can things get? The Marxist will support same-sex marriage until they get it. Then, they will abolish all marriage. Gay progressives who sign on to this agenda in good faith can expect to be betrayed.

    This betrayal will be another example, in a long line of examples, of how misguided gays have been used and then discarded. Still, many settle for Marxism Lite. It feels good. You don’t have to think things through. Will the wonders of the dialectic never cease?

    Perhaps Merle Miller knew something of that betrayal mixed with resentment many who have an affair with liberalism and Marxism Lite feel. In his influential essay, “On Being Different,” published in the New York Time in 1971, he wrote. “…homosexuals, unlike blacks, will not benefit from any guilt feelings on the part of liberals.”

    Forty years have passed since Miller’s essay. The idea of same sex-marriage has managed to capture the imagination of a new generation. They have hitched a ride on the bandwagon of Marxism Lite with its banners of hope and change. They even get down to push the wagon along from time to time.

    Few ask to what gulag the wagon goes. If they were to stand on the shoulders of Miller, they would see the smokestacks of disappointment not too far off. If they were to just look around they would see what most voters want.

    Looking at recent election results it is safe to say that nationwide, most American voters are not in favor of same-sex marriage. Will it be forced upon them by the courts or Congress like the impending government health care or the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, with disastrous results?

    The New York Times recently reported that in New Jersey, “The State Senate…rejected a proposal that would have made New Jersey the sixth state in the nation to allow marriages involving same-sex couples. The vote was the latest in a succession of setbacks for advocates of gay marriage across the country.”

    Many gay people today are caught up by an enthusiasm that blinds them to the lies of Marxism Lite. They suffer from a misplaced goodness. They think they can final do good by first doing evil. Many revolutionaries have gone down the same path.

    Another problem with Marxism Lite, and Marxism heavy for that matter, is that it attempts to absolve us from our moral responsibility by claiming to be a science. It abuses reason to encourage us to be on the right side of history. The proponents of this seduction today are Barack Obama and the Democrats.

    Just as communism is an immoral solution to the problem of poverty, so same-sex marriage is an immoral solution to the problems associated with being gay. To admit this is not to deny there are poor people or gay people in the world. It is, however, to admit the solutions are elsewhere.

    We do not solve poverty by encouraging men to steal, nor do we solve for love by encouraging men to commit adultery. We are encouraged to do neither, even if we are left wanting, even if our virtue is lost to the eyes of the clamorous world.

    There is another solution to poverty and relationships in keeping with man as a moral being. That solution has been part of traditional Western religious teaching, and is the solution that follows from charity.

    It should be obvious by now that communism is no solution to poverty. If it offers a solution, it only masks the problem by making everyone poor, everyone except party members who don’t know the meaning of charity. Given this tract record, are we to follow the Marxists and solve the problem of same-sex marriage by having no marriage at all?

    Nor is the Libertarian solution of abolishing marriage and having just civil unions for everyone acceptable. Men and women want a blessing, not just a piece of paper. Legislating civil unions for everyone only demonstrates that in politics the far right and the far left often share symptoms of the same madness.

    A next step after giving up the demand for same-sex marriage will be working to support many traditional religious values. Gay conservatives can work with pro-life Christians to help end most abortions. They can also work to diminish the damaging effects to society from divorce and single parent families.

    In this era of social unrest and terrorism, it is prudent for gays to be conservative. Yet, how does one decide what party will be best to support? Prudence again teaches that when it comes to freedoms, less government is always better than more government, so you support the political party that wants smaller government.

    If that advice is not enough, then recall the words of the Muslim student advisor at Vanderbilt University. “He was asked directly, ‘Under Islamic law is it punishable by death if you are a homosexual?’ Binhazim said, ‘Yes. It is punishable by death…I don’t have a choice as a Muslim…I go with what Islam teaches…'”

    Will our Marxist Lite government protect gays from that teaching? If it will not, then support the political party that demands a strong national defense.

    We should not wait on them. We start to protect ourselves by knowing the truth and opening ourselves to a change of heart. George Orwell once described himself as a Democratic Socialist. He fought alongside the United Workers Marxist Party militia in the Spanish Civil War and was shot in the throat by a sniper’s bullet. He later had a change of heart.

    Orwell claimed his novel 1984 was written to point out the perversions of Communism and Fascism. There he writes, “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.”

    the negation of ideology

    How do you tell your friend that the one they love is only using them? Maybe you shouldn’t. It’s none of your business. In the case of gays, same-sex marriage and the Democrats, it’s another matter.

    This business pertains to the nation and to tradition. It’s is everybody’s business. How do you tell a voter that to be a member of the Democrat Party is to be complicit with an enduring evil?

    It is necessary gays know the Democrats are using them to advance the desires of the Marxist Lites and their own power. It is necessary they know there is no fool like a gay fool.

    Nevertheless, gays must not be so quick to embrace conservatism that they ignore other conservatives who have an irredeemable homophobia. Hemmed in by their myopic theology, many of these homophobic conservatives let their politics discern who suffers and who does not.

    In their homophobic view, gays cannot suffer injustice. They simply get what they deserve. Homophobes may also misuse political power and hide their ambition under the mask of doing God’s work, in other words, they practice Bigotry Lite.

    How long will it take for a new generation of gay conservatives to persuade their friends that the Marxist Lites of today, disguised as Democrats, are not interested in the wellbeing of others, but interested solely in political power? It may be a hard truth to realize, but to follow the Democrats is to look for love in all the wrong places.

    As a man grows older he is tempted to envy the younger generation. They could be happy. Instead of discrimination and prejudice they could have marriage. Perhaps.

    What we slowly begin to understand as we age is that material conditions do change, but men do not. Marxism is a failed anthropology when it leads us to believe that consciousness and morality is only a reflection of social conditions.

    In spite of changing material conditions, the young are really no different than we are. They will have a chance at happiness just like we did. They also will have a chance at damnation. The illusion of same-sex marriage will not mask this human reality nor the natural conditions of humanity.

    Marxists offer to many the communist state as an ideal that will meet their physical and emotional needs. “Give us your vote and then your body,” the say to gays, “and then we will let you marry.” What the Marxists do not say is, “We will give you marriage, so that next year we will take marriage away from everyone.”

    Have you not heard this drum beat before? You do not want to be undone by what you do. When the executioner held high Robespierre’s head so the crowd below the guillotine could see it, did Robespierre hear any last thing? Maybe he heard the drums of Napoleon’s battalions beating all the way from Corsica.

    Perhaps same-sex marriage will sweep into the world like the wave of Bolsheviks who swept over Russia. Men are notorious by giving themselves to mistaken causes. Imagine the disappoint when the red star you dedicated your life to ends up as trinket in some hip, London resale shop.

    The Soviet Union took its pound of flesh and then expired. So, some lawyers may become rich negotiating same-sex divorces. Imagine realizing after a transient victory that what you wanted all along was not justice, but revenge.

    Russell Kirk was correct when he wrote that conservatism is “the negation of ideology.” Gay conservatives demonstrate this negation when they lead exemplary lives. They take the deficient abundance that is being gay and use it to make the world a better place.

    Gay conservatives may incur the scorn of Democrats and be ignored by Republicans, but that’s tolerable because they have their integrity.

    ###

    Robert Klein Engler lives in Des Plaines, Illinois. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His many articles can be found online. His book, CONTRA OBAMA, is available from Lulu.com.

  3. Regarding Sen. Ashburn.

    He stated he voted against gay rights because that is what the majority of his constituents wanted. O.K. he’s not the first elected leader to put getting re-elected ahead of everything else. But I do have a more important point to make:

    Did any of Sen. Ashburn’s no votes on Gay Rights kill any pending laws?

    True to form the liberal gay assholes around here want nothing to do with him. But, they still would feel that way if he were out of the closet and voting for gay rights. You can never win with liberal gays unless you are a Democrat atheist.

  4. “Public protests have given way to restaurants refusing to serve members, stores refusing to serve members, and landowners refusing to sell to members in an effort to make them as unwelcome as possible.”

    I do not favor Aryan nations type groups. But what’s being done to them in John Day, OR is illegal and wrong.

  5. John, I have to disagree with you on what’s going on in John Day. Restaurants aren’t required to serve anybody; they can refuse service and it’s legal. If I own land and I don’t want to sell it to someone, that’s my right. If a store owner does not feel that the person with the Aryan tattoos walking his aisles is a safe person, he can ask that person to leave.

    Unless the Aryans can prove that the discrimination is based on their race or religion, it’s perfectly legal for the residents of the town to say, “no, we don’t want you here.”

  6. “Unless the Aryans can prove that the discrimination is based on their race or religion, it’s perfectly legal for the residents of the town to say, “no, we don’t want you here.””

    We agree to disagree on this. Sure this sort of refusal of service may be legal. But, that doesn’t make it right. This sort of we don’t want you here attitude can impede someone who has little options. If I need to sell my land or house and I haven’t had a buyer in months or perhaps years even take a look, should I have to pass up someone with money because they are racist?

    What I find funny about all of this is John Day is not a very open minded place so I guess a little bit of bigotry is fine but major league hall of fame bigotry is going too far?

  7. REVISED ARTICLE

    .LOOKING FOR LOVE IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES: GAY CONSERVATIVES IN 2010.

    –Robert Klein Engler

    As the nation gears up for the 2010 election cycle, many gay conservatives are wondering about their role in the body politic. They are asking an important question: “How can we extricate ourselves from the swamp of communism and secularism?”

    It’s ironic, but gay conservatives often live in a closet within a closet. They have to take the risk of coming out not only socially but politically. Unwilling to be rejected twice, many just stay in the political background.

    Likewise, many gay small business owners who run hair salons, florists, antique shops and gay bars may not voice their conservatism, but it is often below the surface. They want lower taxes and less government red tape.

    Gay conservatives are also a rare species for political watchers. Many political watchers have never seen one. The fusion in their eyes of “gay” with what Dick Houtman calls “Marxism Lite,” has blinded them.

    Pam Chamberlain thinks gay conservatives are the “Unwanted allies on the Right.” Yet, many gay conservatives vote Republican, own businesses, want lower taxes and a strong national defense. They are embarrassed by the antics of Act Up and some Gay Pride Parades.

    Gay conservatives have spiritual needs, too, and resent the attacks on religion by the secularists. Many do not want all the attention that comes with a push for same-sex marriage. In short, gay conservatives want to be left alone by big government and small minds.

    the formative 50s

    Events that happened in the 1950s still reverberate in the lives of gay people, today. It was in 1958 that the word “homosexual” was first used in an English translation of the Bible as an questionable translation of the Latin “masculorum concubitores.” Also, in the 50s, the first gay liberation group in the United States, the Mattachine Society, was formed.

    These events in the 50s have led to two unfortunate developments, today. The use of the term “homosexual” in translations of the Bible has misled some Christians into believing that gays are a special type of sinner. Likewise, the early association of the gay liberation movement with communism has kept most gay groups outside the mainstream of American politics.

    The Latin and Greek terms in scripture that give rise to the English word “homosexual” in some Biblical translations are uncertain in their meaning. Biblical scholars have also pointed out that an understanding of the social context in which scripture was written helps us understand better what these Greek and Latin words mean.

    Yet, even with social context taken into consideration, from the time of the Talmud forward, the Rabbis held that “a man lying with a man,” mentioned in Leviticus, refers to anal intercourse. It’s important to remember, however, this reference in Leviticus is an injunction against doing, not against being. Furthermore, it speaks more to sex than to love.

    Even with this act forbidden in the Bible, forbidden as much as adultery is forbidden, there is still room in the house of morality for a same-sex, loving relationship. Our generation and the church carries the burden of restoring this room and opening the windows to the fresh air of truth.

    If the burden of religion was not enough, gay conservatives also have to dal with the burden of Marxism Lite. The early association of the gay liberation movement with communism has led many gays to believe they are an oppressed proletariat deprived of their rights. Neither of these beliefs are accurate in America, today.

    In the 50s, when Harry Hay, along with a group of Los Angeles friends, decided to form the Mattachine Society, he did so to protect and improve the rights of homosexuals. “Because of concerns for secrecy and the founders’ leftist ideology, they adopted the cell organization of the Communist Party.”

    Ironically, for Hay’s group, many Marxists consider homosexuality a product of capitalism. Their view is that when capitalism disappears, so will homosexuality. So, the Communist Party in Hay’s day wanted nothing to do with homosexuals. They threw Hay out of the party, not for being gay, but because he was a “security risk.”

    Gary Leupp demonstrates this same homophobia, today, when he writes, “The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), leading what many have considered the most advanced Maoist movement in the world for the last decade, has recently been accused of attacks on gay people and of indulging in antigay rhetoric.” At best, for Marxists, gays can be used as cannon fodder to achieve a people’s victory.

    Gay people in America should know that Marxist politicians and progressives are not “on the right side of history.” They support the gay agenda until they get power, and then they dump their gay allies. This rejection happened with Hitler and National Socialism. It happened in Russia with Stalin and in Cuba with Castro. It may happen in the United States with Obama.

    The lesson from history is that Marxists and leftists are not interested in social justice for gays but only in their own power. Everywhere gays have aligned themselves with the Left or National Socialism or Marxism, they have been the losers. Gays are safe only where a constitutional conservatism prevails.

    In light of this ingrown homophobia on the Left, it is all the more ironic why some gays have so often attacked religion. How easily they forget that during the AIDS crisis it was the Catholic Church that was one of the groups at the forefront of ministering to the sick.

    To point out the Church’s ministry, however, is not to overlook the debate in Catholic circles on the theological questions raised by the issue of sexual orientation. As this debate continues, it is good to remember, “Charity begins at Rome.”

    politics and practical policies

    Translations of the Bible and the communist influences on the early Mattachine Society are significant events, but they are not sufficient to explain how a movement for gay acceptance ends up in the 21st century as a movement that attacks Christianity and advocates the overthrow of traditional marriage.

    To understand how we moved from then to now, how the present generation of gays sees itself as victims denied “equality,” we have to look at other social phenomena. Chief among these are the black civil rights movement of the 60s, the AIDS epidemic of the 70s, the women’s reproductive movement that includes the legalization of abortion, and the rise of divorce in America.

    Taken together, all of these changes in society have created an environment in which the gay rights movement took root and flourished. Other writers may document the weaving together of these strands, but for our purposes it is enough to note the movement for same-sex marriage represents a distortion over time of what is considered to be a “right.”

    The gay rights movement also demonstrates a descent of the political idea of equality into the swamp of sameness. What should have stopped with the repeal of sodomy laws may end with a secular state that abolishes traditional marriage. These distortion happens because like all theory driven movements, gay liberation can never impose its ideal on reality.

    Much of the political discontent felt in contemporary, liberal America stems from a hope in theory rather than reality–they hope to get from politics what politics cannot give. This is especially true of some minorities and gays. Contrary to a Marxist, theory driven movement, gay conservatives, like most conservatives, have a practical wisdom that tells them when to stop.

    Two millennia ago Aristotle argued that politics was not a theoretical science, but a practical one. We can never know what is theoretically the best course of political action. Even the best policies have unintended consequences. To expect absolute truth from politics is to be immature or captured by the throes of Marxist and queer theory.

    The goal of freedom for gays that queer theory offers, dressed as it is in the feathers and sequins of Marxism Lite, is really an illusion. Instead of opening up being gay to multiple meanings, queer theory straps gays into another straightjacket, this time worn in an alternative universe of gender gnosticism.

    same-sex marriage and then some

    Today, many Christians and gays look at one another with acrimony across the divide of same-sex marriage and wonder what to do. The task of gay conservatives is to help bridge that gap with practically wise policies that take steps towards reconciliation.

    The first step is a move back from the same-sex marriage debate. It is not worth the time or effort of gay conservatives to further same-sex marriage. The campaign for same-sex marriage is poised to end, as a Spanish friend remarked, like a campaign to prohibit drinking alcohol in Spain: a Don Quixote struggle against gin mills.

    The campaign for same-sex marriage began nine months after the Stonewall Riots. “On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota gay student activists, Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis.” The county district court clerk denied the request on the grounds that the two were men.

    Various law suits were filed. Finally, on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal to allow same-sex marriage in Baker v. Nelson. They did so “for want of a substantial federal question.” Since then there have been numerous attempts to achieve same-sex marriage by court rulings or by legislation.

    In a calculated way, Marxists will support gay marriage because they know it will help to undermine all marriage. As Toronto writer Marusya Bociurkiw understands it, “Marx and Engels were decidedly gloomy on the topic of marriage. According to them, marriage is a property relation, with its roots in slavery. It’s perfectly designed to work with capitalism.”

    If carried too far, the demand for same-sex marriage can actually become reactionary. “Same-sex marriage, from a Marxist perspective, isn’t just a one-way deal: lesbians and gays get protection and legitimization from the state. The state benefits too. In other words, same-sex marriage plays into the hands of a government hell-bent on privatizing everything from pension plans to healthcare.”

    How much more confusing can things get? The Marxist will support same-sex marriage until they get it. Then, they will abolish all marriage. Gay progressives who sign on to this agenda in good faith can expect to be betrayed.

    This betrayal will be another example, in a long line of examples, of how misguided gays have been used and then discarded. Still, many settle for Marxism Lite. It feels good. You don’t have to think things through. Will the wonders of the dialectic never cease?

    Perhaps Merle Miller knew something of that betrayal mixed with resentment many who have an affair with liberalism and Marxism Lite feel. In his influential essay, “On Being Different,” published in the New York Time in 1971, he wrote. “…homosexuals, unlike blacks, will not benefit from any guilt feelings on the part of liberals.”

    Forty years have passed since Miller’s essay. The idea of same sex-marriage has managed to capture the imagination of a new generation. They have hitched a ride on the bandwagon of Marxism Lite with its banners of hope and change. They even get down to push the wagon along from time to time.

    Few ask to what gulag the wagon goes. If they were to stand on the shoulders of Miller, they would see the smokestacks of disappointment not too far off. If they were to just look around they would see what most voters want.

    Looking at recent election results it is safe to say that nationwide, most American voters are not in favor of same-sex marriage. Will it be forced upon them by the courts or Congress like the impending government health care or the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, with disastrous results?

    The New York Times recently reported that in New Jersey, “The State Senate…rejected a proposal that would have made New Jersey the sixth state in the nation to allow marriages involving same-sex couples. The vote was the latest in a succession of setbacks for advocates of gay marriage across the country.”

    Many gay people today are caught up by an enthusiasm that blinds them to the lies of Marxism Lite. They suffer from a misplaced goodness. They think they can final do good by first doing evil. Many revolutionaries have gone down the same path.

    Another problem with Marxism Lite, and Marxism heavy for that matter, is that it attempts to absolve us from our moral responsibility by claiming to be a science. It abuses reason to encourage us to be on the right side of history. The proponents of this seduction today are Barack Obama and the Democrats.

    Just as communism is an immoral solution to the problem of poverty, so same-sex marriage is an immoral solution to the problems associated with being gay. To admit this is not to deny there are poor people or gay people in the world. It is, however, to admit the solutions are elsewhere.

    We do not solve poverty by encouraging men to steal, nor do we solve for love by encouraging men to commit adultery. We are encouraged to do neither, even if we are left wanting, even if our virtue is lost to the eyes of the clamorous world.

    There is another solution to poverty and relationships in keeping with man as a moral being. That solution has been part of traditional Western religious teaching, and is the solution that follows from charity.

    It should be obvious by now that communism is no solution to poverty. If it offers a solution, it only masks the problem by making everyone poor, everyone except party members who don’t know the meaning of charity. Given this tract record, are we to follow the Marxists and solve the problem of same-sex marriage by having no marriage at all?

    Nor is the Libertarian solution of abolishing marriage and having just civil unions for everyone acceptable. Men and women want a blessing, not just a piece of paper. Legislating civil unions for everyone only demonstrates that in politics the far right and the far left often share symptoms of the same madness.

    A next step after giving up the demand for same-sex marriage will be working to support many traditional religious values. Gay conservatives can work with pro-life Christians to help end most abortions. They can also work to diminish the damaging effects to society from divorce and single parent families.

    In this era of social unrest and terrorism, it is prudent for gays to be conservative. Yet, how does one decide what party will be best to support? Prudence again teaches that when it comes to freedoms, less government is always better than more government, so you support the political party that wants smaller government.

    If that advice is not enough, then recall the words of the Muslim student advisor at Vanderbilt University. “He was asked directly, ‘Under Islamic law is it punishable by death if you are a homosexual?’ Binhazim said, ‘Yes. It is punishable by death…I don’t have a choice as a Muslim…I go with what Islam teaches…'”

    Will our Marxist Lite government protect gays from that teaching? If it will not, then support the political party that demands a strong national defense.

    We should not wait on them. We start to protect ourselves by knowing the truth and opening ourselves to a change of heart. George Orwell once described himself as a Democratic Socialist. He fought alongside the United Workers Marxist Party militia in the Spanish Civil War and was shot in the throat by a sniper’s bullet. He later had a change of heart.

    Orwell claimed his novel 1984 was written to point out the perversions of Communism and Fascism. There he writes, “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.”

    the negation of ideology

    How do you tell your friend that the one they love is only using them? Maybe you shouldn’t. It’s none of your business. In the case of gays, same-sex marriage and the Democrats, it’s another matter.

    This business pertains to the nation and to tradition. It’s is everybody’s business. How do you tell a voter that to be a member of the Democrat Party is to be complicit with an enduring evil?

    It is necessary gays know the Democrats are using them to advance the desires of the Marxist Lites and their own power. It is necessary they know there is no fool like a gay fool.

    Nevertheless, gays must not be so quick to embrace conservatism that they ignore other conservatives who have an irredeemable homophobia. Hemmed in by their myopic theology, many of these homophobic conservatives let their politics discern who suffers and who does not.

    In their homophobic view, gays cannot suffer injustice. They simply get what they deserve. Homophobes may also misuse political power and hide their ambition under the mask of doing God’s work, in other words, they practice Bigotry Lite.

    How long will it take for a new generation of gay conservatives to persuade their friends that the Marxist Lites of today, disguised as Democrats, are not interested in the wellbeing of others, but interested solely in political power? It may be a hard truth to realize, but to follow the Democrats is to look for love in all the wrong places.

    As a man grows older he is tempted to envy the younger generation. They could be happy. Instead of discrimination and prejudice they could have marriage. Perhaps.

    What we slowly begin to understand as we age is that material conditions do change, but men do not. Marxism is a failed anthropology when it leads us to believe that consciousness and morality is only a reflection of social conditions.

    In spite of changing material conditions, the young are really no different than we are. They will have a chance at happiness just like we did. They also will have a chance at damnation. The illusion of same-sex marriage will not mask this human reality nor the natural conditions of humanity.

    Marxists offer to many the communist state as an ideal that will meet their physical and emotional needs. “Give us your vote and then your body,” the say to gays, “and then we will let you marry.” What the Marxists do not say is, “We will give you marriage, so that next year we will take marriage away from everyone.”

    Have you not heard this drum beat before? You do not want to be undone by what you do. When the executioner held high Robespierre’s head so the crowd below the guillotine could see it, did Robespierre hear any last thing? Maybe he heard the drums of Napoleon’s battalions beating all the way from Corsica.

    Perhaps same-sex marriage will sweep into the world like the wave of Bolsheviks who swept over Russia. Men are notorious by giving themselves to mistaken causes. Imagine the disappointment when the red star you dedicated your life to ends up as trinket in some hip, London resale shop.

    The Soviet Union took its pound of flesh and then expired. So, some lawyers may become rich negotiating same-sex divorces. Then, one day you wake up and realize that after your transient victory what you wanted all along was not justice, but revenge.

    Russell Kirk was correct when he wrote that conservatism is “the negation of ideology.” Gay conservatives demonstrate this negation when they lead exemplary lives.

    They take the deficient abundance that is being gay, that felix culpa, and use it to make the world a better place. Gay conservatives may incur the scorn of Democrats and be ignored by Republicans, but that’s tolerable because they have their integrity.

    ###

    Robert Klein Engler lives in Oak Park and Des Plaines, Illinois. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His many articles can be found online. His book, CONTRA OBAMA, is available from Lulu.com.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s