Bill Clinton Panders to Homosexual Activist HRC in Washington, D.C. – We Will Resist Them
On August 11, 1928, G.K. Chesterton wrote these words for the Illustrated London News – “These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own”.
That poignant insight came to mind when I read of one more example of political pandering by a politician. This time it was Bill Clinton, the former President of the United States. He pandered to the powerful homosexual advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign.
On Saturday, October 25, 2014, the former President addressed the Human Rights Campaign, the leading political and public policy wing of the Homosexual Equivalency Movement. The power wielded by the Human Rights Campaign is formidable and growing.
In an emotionally laden example of political pandering, the former President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, went out of his way to convince the activists that both he and his wife no longer believe that marriage is what it ontologically is, a union solely possible between one man and one woman.
This is the same President who, one year after he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, told the Homosexual and lesbian magazine The Advocate, “I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or considered.”
So, what has changed? Certainly not the truth about marriage. It cannot and will not change. Rather, this politician has changed. And, his wife wants to be President of the United States.
Using the Orwellian Newspeak of the homosexual equivalency movement, Clinton borrowed phrase after phrase from the lexicon of the Human Rights Campaign.
He inserted his Clintonian humor, proclaiming “I love the HRC. The initials are great,”- a reference to the initials of his wife and the initials of the largest homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgender organization in the United States.
This pandering by Bill Clinton to the Human Rights campaign should come as no surprise. This well-funded group of activists increasingly controls the Party which the former President and his wife have chosen to use for their continuing political ambitions.
Earlier this year I witnessed a tirade by the homosexual activist John Aravosis on MediaBuzz, a Fox Network show hosted by Howard Kurtz. The discussion occurred during a panel discussion concerning the forced resignation of the former CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich.
Several years ago, Eich contributed $1,000 to defending marriage as between one man and one woman. In an act of incredible arrogance and insensitivity to evil, Aravosis compared this act of supporting marriage to denying the holocaust!
Of course, you probably did not hear much about this insane tirade in the propaganda media. That is because the propaganda media has not only embraced the Orwellian New-speak of the Homosexual Equivalency movement, it is increasingly acting as a ministry of propaganda.
Those who support marriage as possible only between one man and one woman, open to life, intended for life and formative of the family, are now considered a threat to the new cultural order.
Anyone who believes that other relationships between consenting adults are not the same as marriage, is also a threat to these activists. That includes all classical Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, along with many other people of faith and good will.
For years I have referred to the movement behind this Cultural Revolution as the Homosexual Equivalency Movement. The leaders of this movement insist that homosexual and lesbian sexual practices are morally equivalent to the sexual expression of marital love between a man and a woman.
They further insist that every State make homosexual and lesbian relationships legally equivalent to marriage and want to use the police power of the Federal Government to enforce this new order.
They are using every means of political power to compel us all to call to be a marriage what can never be a marriage. If we resist, we will face punitive sanctions.
Anyone who agrees with what the Natural Moral Law confirms – and what the cross cultural history of Nations has long affirmed – that marriage is between one man and one woman, intended for life and formative of family, is subjected to intense public ridicule and worse, efforts to silence their speech, preclude them from commerce and squeeze them out of political participation.
In this charged rhetorical climate, verbally supporting marriage as between one man and one woman has been turned on its rhetorical head. Proponents of real marriage are called anti-gay marriage. Worse yet, they are disparaged as being against something called marriage equality.
Homosexual equivalency activists suppress free speech and employ bullying tactics against any who disagree with them. They use every media opportunity to engage in invective.
John Aravosis, a lawyer, a self-identified, practicing homosexual man, and a bully. He is what I refer to as a homosexual equivalency activist. He has decided to use his public position to force y everyone into agreeing with his position – or else.
The exchange between John Aravosis and Amy Holmes on MediaBuzz was an example of the kind of verbal bullying to which I refer.
Amy Holmes was respectful, dignified and very persuasive throughout her entire presentation. However, she was treated with disdain by a rude, bellicose bully who is so zealous in his commitment to the Cultural Revolution that he sees himself as a self-appointed enforcer of this new order.
In the brave new world of people like John Aravosis, classical Christians, and anyone else who disagrees with his position, are compared to holocaust deniers. His behavior on the air was repugnant. However, it is becoming normative.
So much for civil discourse, robust debate, or even the pretense of reasonable dialogue or disagreement. John Aravosis yelled over Amy Holmes. He demonstrated a haughty, arrogant condescension, which should have been immediately rebuked by the host. Instead, it was given free roam.
Free Speech and Religious freedom are in the cross-hairs. We face the alarming force of overt discrimination. We have been told to keep what is routinely called our “religious” position about marriage behind our Church doors. We cannot and we will not.
The truth about marriage is not simply a “religious” construct. The Natural Law reveals – and the cross cultural history of civilization affirms – that marriage is between a man and a woman, open to children and intended for life. Affirming that truth serves the common good.
Marriage is the foundation for the family which is the privileged place for the formation of virtue and character in children, our future citizens. The family is the first society, first economy, first school, first civilizing and mediating institution and first government.
When sexual behavior between two men or two women is viewed as providing a legal and moral foundation of some newly minted right to marry – and when those who oppose this fiction are characterized as being against what is being called a freedom to marry and marriage equality in the new-speak of the hour – the revolutionary plan should be obvious to any honest observer.
The institutions of government should defend marriage against those who want to redefine it out of existence. Government has long regulated marriage for the common good. For example, the ban on polygamy and age requirements were enforced in order to ensure that there was a mature decision at the basis of the Marriage contract.
To limit marriage to heterosexual couples is not discriminatory now, nor has it ever been. Homosexual and lesbian couples cannot bring into existence what marriage intends by its very definition. To now confer the benefits that have been conferred in the past only to stable married couples and families to homosexual paramours is bad public policy and will never serve the real common good.
The architects of the new order, whether ruling from the bench or misusing their office in the Legislative and Executive branch, are increasingly unchecked by any balance of power. They have followed what the legal positivists long proclaimed, “The law is what the courts say it is.”
Their enforcers, using the platform of an integrated media, are committed to silencing the supporters of marriage. This is serious business and portends difficult days ahead. .
However, some good people who value civil discourse within the homosexual community, such as Andrew Sullivan, recognize the danger. In an insightful piece entitled The Hounding of a Heretic, Sullivan wrote:
“The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists. Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame?
“Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us”.
We must be ready for what lies ahead. The proponents of a new Cultural Order have unveiled their strategy of forcing their view on the rest of us and allowing for no dissent.
Notice how intolerant they are of any who insist that marriage is what it is, a relationship solely possible between one man and one woman.
All people of good will who recognize the vital role that marriage and the family play in serving the common good must get ready for what lies ahead.
All people of good will who respect free speech, free association and the free exercise of religion must not be surprised by the effort to undermine all three in the name of a new cultural order.
The belligerent effort to silence supporters of marriage is fully underway. We will not, we must not, be silenced. The former President of the United States pandered to the Human Rights Campaign. We will resist them.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.