Monday, September 12, 2005

Emotional Appeals and More Lies

The queer activists knew they'd have to win their fight dishonestly, and avoid the ugly truth about the unnaturalness and riskiness of homosexual sex, or the unbalanced life experience that same-sex parenting imparts to young children.

They knew to frame their demands as a "right" -- because once recognized, a "right" can't be taken away. (Why, you might even get "pro-family" groups to agree with this concept!) As if anyone has a "right" to sodomitic "marriages"; or his employer paying for a sex-change operation; or cross-dressing on the job (a.k.a. "sexual expression"); or demanding a lease for an apartment owned by a landlord with moral objections; or public displays of lewdness; or spreading lies to schoolchildren.

And they knew to troop before legislators as happy "married" couples and "families", asking how the legislator could even conceive of taking away their happiness, of breaking up their family! And claim over and over that nothing has really changed since "gay marriages" began; everything is still perfectly lovely.

Here's how the queer activists won over unthinking legislators (Raphael Lewis, Boston Globe, 9-12-05):

Lawmakers said the change in position developed as they found that the onset of same-sex marriages did little to alter the fabric of life in the Bay State. Gay-rights groups also staged a months-long campaign to win over skeptical legislators by arranging meetings with same-sex couples to discuss their lives.

State Senator James E. Timilty, a Walpole Democrat who campaigned last year in favor of the proposed constitutional amendment, said the meetings were crucial to altering his position because they converted abstract moral arguments into tangible reality.

''At many of these meetings, when I would look at the children of these couples and see that they deserved all of the benefits that I had certainly growing up in a family, the principles of fairness changed my mind and I decided that a no vote was the correct vote," Timilty said.

Over the past few months, 43 lawmakers who favored the proposed constitutional amendment met with same-sex couples, their friends, and their clergy, according to Marty Rouse, campaign director for MassEquality, which spearheaded the campaign.

The meetings appear to have achieved their desired effect. By Friday, legislators' internal polling revealed that at least eight House lawmakers and at least two senators who last year voted for the amendment sponsored by Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and Senate Republican Leader Brian P. Lees have decided to switch their votes.

Boston Globe columnist Adrian Walker writes:

The idea of gay marriage going before voters is anathema to proponents, and understandably so. No one would want to fight three more long years to defend a right that's already been won.

And how did they "win" this "right"? Through an illegitimate, unconstitutional court ruling. Do courts grant rights?

When the Legislature last visited this issue, there was concern that it was a political hot potato. That anxiety has evaporated on Beacon Hill, as many voters seem to regard the issue with relative indifference. It just doesn't directly affect as many lives as, say, healthcare reform.

We're seeing this statement again and again, twice in one day in the Globe: that life has changed little since homosexual "marriages" began. What world are these people observing?

Isn't it a big change to insist on teaching all our schoolchildren about unhealthy, perverted sex and homosexual-headed families because "gay marriage is legal now"? And to tell parents they can't stop it? To enlist our children -- often without parental knowledge -- in a sad, debilitating and unhealthy lifestyle akin to other addictions? To go on to tell them sex-change operations might be the solution to their adolescent angst? To sentence them to family-less, childless futures?

We keep reading, "No earthquakes occurred in Massachusetts after homosexual marriage." Have these legislators heard about the father arrested in Lexington, denied his parental rights under state law? The Little Black Book? The sex-change propaganda disseminated through the gay clubs in our high schools? The pornographic "gay" billboard on Mass. Ave. in Cambridge? The filthy Bay Windows newspapers in our family-neighborhood supermarkets?

Our society will be profoundly affected in ways we can't even imagine yet.

These shortsighted legislators are "thinking" through their emotions and have their heads in the sand. And the big media are right there with them.