Don Feder's recent column, "THE HATE CRIMES AMENDMENT AND LOSING THE MARRIAGE WAR" (from GrasstopsUsa.com, Oct. 10), speaks to an issue we live with daily: hate speech (directed at us, that is).
But "hate crimes" laws are being passed to protect the homosexual radicals, not us, and eventually to prosecute anyone who dares to speak out against their perverted assault on our country and families.
Especially pertinent to our situation in Massachusetts is Feder's conclusion. If you've been following state politics on this issue, you'll understand that one reason we've been losing is that some conservative pro-family groups have consciously adopted a "nice guy" approach to this issue: "Don't talk about homosexuality, or what they do. Just talk about families." Sadly, these people just don't understand the enemy they're fighting. They didn't seem to realize that the enemy could throw that word "family" right back at them. That they could talk about their "rights" too.
What the problem really comes down to is that homosexuality is morally wrong, and it's an unnatural perversion (and a very unhealthy one at that). If we can't talk about this openly in the press or with our elected officials and the voters, we'll lose the battle.
From Feder's column:
The coalition of national pro-family groups that’s pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment [and the new Massachusetts amendment, we might add] has determined that success hinges on scrupulously avoiding any public discussion of homosexuality. They seek to stop a thing without naming it – always a difficult proposition.
The coalition decided that a direct challenge to the homosexual ethos (that same-sex couples are equal in dignity and worth to a father and mother working to ensure society’s future) would allow them to be cast as bigots.
Hence, their argument boils down to “do it for the kids” (truly, a courageous stand). Traditional marriage must be preserved because it’s the best way to raise children, they plead. While indisputably true, by defaulting on the more fundamental point – why two men who are sodomizing each other are not the moral equivalent of a man and a woman joined in a monogamous relationship, sanctified by faith and tradition – they have allowed the social acceptance of homosexuality to advance unhindered. To win a battle, they are ceding ultimate victory.
Thus, while our side wins state marriage referendums, theirs continues to tighten its iron grip on the culture....
[W]e must somehow muster the courage to brave charges of bigotry. Ultimately, we must admit that a man who’s into schtuping other men is not a worthy object of veneration.
