Lone voice in the media.
Op-ed article published in September 2003 -- in (at the time) fearful anticipation of the SJC
ruling which finally came two months later. . The only "hard-hitting"
gay marriage article published (to our knowledge) in any Boston newspaper
that year. This same article had been previously accepted by the
Boston Globe for publishing, then later rejected by them and the Boston
Herald before finally appearing in the Advocate. Afterwards, gay activists
flooded the Advocate with angry calls and letters to the editor, filling
the letters page for three consecutive weeks.
Gay Marriage is the latest ideological fad for elitistsby Brian Camenker
The Jewish Advocate newspaper
September 12, 2003
The concept of "gay marriage" is the latest ideological fad being embraced by the fraternity of cultural elitists, limousine liberals, and new-age politicians. It's a movement that's suddenly everywhere, with such force that the rest of society is left bracing itself for the consequences of this latest collective social depravity.
The train is rolling. Last year The Boston Globe began publishing homosexual "wedding" announcements and photos. The pro-gay marriage media blitz is now an almost daily thing, with even a glowing article on the front page of The Jewish Advocate recently. At the same time, opposing viewpoints are not-so-discretely being edged out of the public forum.
This idea first surfaced 30 years ago when a group of 200 homosexuals met in Chicago. They wrote the famous "1972 Gay Rights Platform," which has been a beacon for the homosexual movement ever since.
In 1972 their demands seemed so outlandish that nobody took them seriously. For example: Government-supported sex education for children, taught by gays, "presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality." Also: mandated public acceptance of gays in the military, federal civil service, and private companies. Legal immigration of gays. Legalization of gay adoption and foster parenting. Legal acceptance of transvestitism and cross-dressing. Repeal of laws prohibiting solicitation of sex and prostitution. Repeal of laws governing the age of sexual consent of children.
The jet fuel of the movement has been the involvement of the media. As with the "big lie" brand of propaganda in the 1930s, given a compelling enough frame of reference with constant reinforcement -- and fierce public demonization of opposing views -- great numbers of people will eventually believe without questioning.
The biggest lie is the media puff article of the happy, healthy gay couple. The actual statistics are staggering. The stratospheric rates of domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and psychological problems among same-sex "couples." (Look at any inner-city police blotter.) Not to mention the overwhelming health issues: bowel cancer, liver disease, hepatitis -- not to mention AIDS and suicide.
But the key to the whole debate is how the activists have successfully re- framed their fundamental problem.
Until 50 years ago, the concept of homosexuals as a class of people did not exist. There is no such thing as "gays." The observable facts have always revealed individuals addicted to a range of unhealthy and destructive sexual practices and relationships -- people whose psychological balance was tragically (and often traumatically) upset.
Simply look around. Pick up any gay newspaper and read about a whole range of fetishes, from spanking to cross-dressing. Or the "party in my mouth" personal ads, descriptive articles about anal intercourse, or discourses on the fine points of bisexuality.
Or go to any gay pride parade, and see people pulling down their pants and publicly engaging in all kinds of bizarre degradation. At this year's Gay Pride parades they threw condoms, men marched naked, and women fondled each other on floats.
The media, of course, marches in lockstep and questions nothing. A recent Globe article seriously profiled Provincetown by showing two men dancing in the street with nothing on but high heels and women's underwear. There is no dignity here, simply people defining themselves by their sexual practices.
In reality, these are people who are in great internal pain. It is not "gay" at all.
For the activists, "gay marriage" is not really about wanting to be married. In places where it's become quasi-legal, very few of them actually do it because they really don't care to. "Gay marriage" is really about an obsession that society does not officially accept their behavior -- and their rage that we don't and never will.
That's the objective truth that the "social justice" liberals refuse to even explore.