By Timothy Birdnow
'Sex' is as important as eating or drinking and we ought to allow the one appetite to be satisfied with as little restraint or false modesty as the other."
Marquis de Sade
In 2004 Missouri overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution banning same sex marriage. This measure - which passed with 71% of the vote - became law under Article I Sec. 33 and states:
"That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."
Now one would think this is unambiguous; to be valid and RECOGNIZED does not leave much wiggle room for the lawyers, yet the state's Democratic governor, Jay "I am not a crook" Nixon, is wiggling on this worse than a worm about to be mounted on a fishhook; he has declared that gay marriages performed in other states will be recognized on state income tax forms.
This sort of dissembling is endemic of the "gay marriage" debate (which is itself a term rank with dishonesty; two men or two women can no more be married than can a man and his goldfish, the two being biologically incapable of reproducing in either case. The promotion of homosexual behavior by the Progressives in our society is now reaching a crescendo and the first casualty in this titanic struggle for the right to fornicate in an largely painful and unhygienic fashion and receive societal approval has been the truth.
Why did Nixon do this now? Governor Nixon is the Ensign Pulver of politics; the secret of his success is his invisibility. (For those who have never seen the movie Mr. Roberts http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048380/
, Ensign Pulver never left his bunk shipboard, and nobody knew he was a member of the crew.) The secret of Nixon's success has been his willingness to hide and to not take any controversial stands - thus appearing to be whatever the casual observer chooses to believe of him. (He is much like Barack Obama in this, although Obama was quite visible while Nixon slinks around in shadows.) But Nixon has his eye on bigger things, and to advance beyond the backwater of Missouri a Democratic politician must embrace - a larger view, to quote Senator Palpatine from Star Wars. Gay marriage is at the top of the Progressive agenda, and Nixon can claim he cannot stop this de facto recognition of it thanks to the work of his brother in Illinois, Democrat Pat Quinn just signed into law gay marriage for that utopian land just east of Missouri http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/20/illinois-governor-signs-...
and who is Jay Nixon or any Missourian to question this wisdom? Illinois has been such a rousing success story, after all...
So Jay Nixon has attempted to backdoor gay marriage (no pun intended) in the State of Missouri.
The Left has promoted homosexual behavior for a long time. At first glance one can make out no sensible reason why this would be so. But Isaac Asimov let the cat out of the bag back in 1971, arguing in an essay that, given the expansion of the population, we should welcome gay sex and gay marriage because these relationships do not lead to reproduction. Asimov - an atheist and secular humanist - promoted the old Malthusian argument that population growth would eventually lead to grinding poverty and an eventual collapse of civilization. Homosexual behavior was harmless, Asimov reasoned, and so promoting "gayness" would actually be a societal good. (Interestingly enough Asimov died of AIDS. http://www.locusmag.com/2002/Issue04/Letter.html
Asimov published innumerable essays bemoaning overpopulation http://www.asimovonline.com/oldsite/essay_guide.html
, and he was hardly non-main sequence liberal here; Thomas Malthus has been at the root of many of the left's main causes for over a century. Paul Ehrlich, he of the Population Bomb, was simply the '70's disco version of Malthus, and that gave us "Limits to Growth" which gave us the environmental movement, Global Warming pseudo-science, and "sustainability". Homosexuality is but one leg in the dream world of the Left, a world where breeding is not considered a right but a very special privilege. The Left seeks to divorce sex from reproduction, to make sex a simple physical act, a feeding of a hunger. That is why Sandra Fluke can demand free contraception without batting an eye; sex has little to do with creating families or binding yourself permanently to one person, the person who will ultimately help you raise your children. Homosexuality is the ultimate rebellion against this "Bourgeois morality". The Progressives have a powerful incentive to promote being gay.
And unrestricted sexuality has been a goal of the Left for well over a hundred years. The "Free Love" movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was the stepchild of the Marquis De Sade, who was a profoundly influence on the emerging Liberal movement of the 1]8th century, according to Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his grand review of the roots of liberalism "Leftism Revisited". A desired to smash the constraints on sexual appetites, to divorce it from society's view of the individual, lies at the very heart of the Left and always has.
The social order has always been built on a fundamental regulation of sexual behavior. Overpopulation was indeed a problem in the past as a tribe could easily outrun their food supply, and marriage was the restriction put in place to prevent that. Furthermore, it was observed that a much stronger society was to be had by giving children two parents to share the burdens not only of providing for the physical needs of the children but also doing the hard work of satisfying their emotional need for love and security, as well as providing a model for how to live. The Left, seeking a "new man", one freed from the restraints imposed by Christian morality and Nature's God, have risen in rebellion against the entire order of society, against Natural Law, against Divine Revelation. Sex is the bayonet of that revolution.
That last is important because what the current "gay fad" is intended to do is to break this passing along of received wisdom from our forbearers. The Left wants to make a "New Man" and to do that the chain of "contagion" of old ideas and beliefs must be broken. Children must be raised by the State or at least have the State be the primary influence over their intellectual and moral development. Common Core is one of the tools now being implemented to accomplish this, and that is being promoted in both the public schools (the original source for Leftist indoctrination) and the private ones as well.
It is why atheists launch hysterical legal assaults on Nativity scenes, or try to ban Bible quotes in schools (even though the Bible was one of the historical building blocks of American society and as an historical underpinning should logically be taught to students). It is why the left promotes any centralization of power over regional or local control. Common core is a tool designed to break this cycle of "contagion". It is why Obamacare demands free contraception. It is why abortion is so holy a sacrament to the Left; it is a symbolic act that makes turning back to one's Christian roots quite difficult (it is difficult to ask for forgiveness when one has murdered her own child.) The idea is to make the Progressive movement the only place where many can find acceptance - or so they want people to believe.
So I ask again, why did Governor Nixon risk poking his hoary little head out of his shell to promote homosexual marriage in a state that has overwhelmingly rejected it?
Because powerful forces are behind the big push. Those forces determine who will be allowed to dance on the national stage, and who will be relegated to the backwaters of a place like Missouri. Nixon, like all egomaniacal politicians, seeks greater glory.
Which then makes one ask the question first uttered by that pillar of moral virtue de Sade; what makes sex different than food or drink?
One would think Divine Revelation and thousands of years of human experience would be adequate to answer such a question, but some of us learn at slower rates and perhaps de Sade was the first Common Core student so we may cut him some slack (something I fear he rarely did with his sexual partners). So let us simply apply this logic to the two topics and examine the responses of modern liberals to both.
Michelle Obama has spearheaded a national drive to combat obesity in children, and her efforts have involved the creation of "food police" who oversee what lunch items children may eat. Children caught with food not approved by the Commissars are subject to their lunches being confiscated at their being forced to eat the carrot sticks and other rabbit refuse - and then being forced to pay for it.
In fact, this has been happening across America:
1.In New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to ban large soft drinks as a measure to combat obesity. His ban was overturned by a court of law.
2.In 2009 New York Governor David Paterson proposed a 15% "obesity tax" on soft drinks at the behest of the notoriously liberal junk-science organization Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has called for taxes on most fat-containing foods as well as salt.
3.There have been numerous attempts to fight obesity with lawsuits. http://banzhaf.net/obesitylinks.html
See these horror stories of food Nazis throwing away parent-packed lunches in public schools:
Meanwhile, Michelle Obama is heading up a campaign "let's move!" designed to promote physical exercise.
Strange how aggressive this government - led by committed leftists - is toward dietary problems while at the same time promoting homosexuality. And they HAVE promoted it; they have regularized it in the military, have refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court, etc.
If there is a societal interest in reducing obesity, is there not an equal societal interest in reducing homosexuality?
Scientists pretty much agree that obesity is caused by a combination of elements, including genetic predisposition as well as eating habits (learned) and taste as well as the amount of physical activity performed by the child. In other words, there are several factors that go into fat kids. But we are now told that homosexuality has one sole cause, and that genetic. Being gay is entirely out of the hands of gay people, we are led to believe; it is a genetically driven imperative. Society has no hope of reducing the number of gay people nor does it have any interest in doing so, therefore we must grant full civil rights to the gay individual (despite millennia of historical experience).
First, there has never been a "gay gene" found. The best that science has been able to offer are some tantalizing correlations (a tendency to greater left-handedness among gay people, a tendency for separated identical twins to both be gay) but correlation does not mean causality. There have been epigenetic markers http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33773/title/C...
that may point to a tendency to be homosexual (why would we have a suppressed "gay gene" to begin with? It makes no evolutionary sense, since this gene would naturally breed itself out of the gene pool before it could become established in the general population). But there has never been a smoking gun genetic link proven.
A gay gene makes bisexuality completely illogical.
But for the sake of argument let us concede a genetic tendency towards homosexuality. Well, isn't that exactly what we have with obesity? Some people have a genetic tendency to be overweight WHEN THE CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT and that is precisely what the government seeks to control so as to avoid the problem. (Actually, food Nazism is about much more than the individual, see my article Where's the Beef http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/wheres_the_beef.html
Also, consider that the Left is the culprit in the first place; the family meal was strangled by them in their quest to atomize the individual and break the family, and now they propose to fix a problem largely of their own making.) If controlling the kinds of food and portion sizes that children are allowed is a state-sanctioned function, than shouldn't controlling homosexual imagery and experience be likewise? Shouldn't we be trying to put homosexuality back into the closet to prevent children with genetic tendencies from suffering temptation? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The difference in approach is astonishing.
I hear the "buts" now; but being overweight is clearly a societal concern because it leads to all manner of medical complications and society ends up paying for this.
True, but it is equally true of homosexuality.
They tend to have more and more severe http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx
mental health problems http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-f...
as well as are plagued by a host of physical ailments either not normally associated with heterosexuals or that appear with greater frequency and intensity. http://brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/...
In fact, the life expectancy of homosexuals is shortened. This claim brings howls of protests from gay activist groups http://catholicimedia.blogspot.com/2012/09/scientific-research-dama...
but is undeniable nonetheless.
So both obesity and homosexuality may have a biological component and both are bad for the public health. So why are we treating these two behavioral issues differently? If society must discourage obesity, should it not equally discourage homosexuality?
That is the opposite of what is happening. We are celebrating being gay while condemning being overweight. The left's hypocrisy is astonishing.
But that is because the two both serve real purposes to the advancement of socialism. In the case of food the prevention of obesity allows government to grow obese itself, to metastasize as it tells the individual and the family what they can or cannot eat while there would be no similar benefit from the prohibition of homosexuality. The promotion of homosexuality offers many benefits that the Left finds attractive. It damages the family, opening the door to greater government control. It promotes a platform to assault traditional values and particularly Christianity. It creates a solid voting block that favors Democrats.
And we are told we must change our entire way of life to accommodate what is perhaps 4% of the population. The influence of the gay lobby is staggering in proportion to their actual numbers.
So, why is Missouri Governor Jay Nixon willing to risk offending his entire state by recognizing gay marriages? The people who could advance his career have decided this is a deal breaking issue.
Gay marriage is not and never has been about fairness.
Read more from Tim and friends at The Aviary www.tbirdnow.mee.nu