Sunday, November 21, 2004

Selfish Hedonists: You're Next 

Dept. of Dueling Dystopias: While the Bush administration has routinely turned to Orwell and Sinclair Lewis for instruction and spiritual guidance, the newly-ascendant, newly-obstreperous base has proven to be rather more smitten with the inspirational works of John Wyndham and Margaret Atwood. Did you imagine that the fundy agenda was restricted to the prevention of legally-sanctioned homosexual monogamy? Guess again: the next round of targets will include such moral outlaws as cohabitants, divorcees, and the "deliberately childless" (a category which presumably includes all women who do not accept their natural function as ambulatory baby farms). To this crew, Alan Keyes IS making sense:
"Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh, soul-searching look at the institution.

"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor who writes frequently about family issues.

While Christensen doesn't oppose the campaign to enact state and federal bans on gay marriage, he worries it's distracting from immediate threats to marriage's place in society.

"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated - if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness - then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."

Gay-rights supporters, during their recent losing battles against gay-marriage bans in 11 states, often argued that if marriage in America was in fact troubled, it was heterosexuals - not gays - who bore the blame.

"That was the best argument same-sex marriage advocates had: 'Where were you when no-fault divorce went through?'" said Allan Carlson, a conservative scholar who runs a family-studies center in Rockford, Ill. "Any thoughtful defender of marriage has to say, 'You're right. We were asleep at the switch in the '60s and '70s'" . . . .

One group, the Alliance for Marriage, has focused almost entirely in the past two years on advocating a federal amendment that would ban gay marriage. The alliance's president, Matt Daniels, said the proposed ban is an essential starting point for other initiatives to strengthen heterosexual marriage - such as promoting family-friendly workplace policies.

"No one in the alliance believes saving the legal status of marriage as between man and woman will alone be sufficient to stem the tide of family disintegration," Daniels said. "But if we lose that legal status, we lose the policy tool we need to pursue our broader agenda."
(Thanks to Zemblan patriot J.D. for the link.)

SIDEBAR: The lead official of the Pederast Protection Agency opens his pie hole again.

| | Technorati Links | to Del.icio.us