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.”
They came to my mind this past Sunday when I witnessed a tirade by John Aravosis on MediaBuzz, the Fox show hosted by Howard Kurtz.
The discussion which formed the basis of a panel discussion was the forced resignation of the former CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich. By now, we all know that, several years ago, Eich contributed $1,000 to defend marriage as between one man and one woman.
Of course, that is not what you are hearing or reading in much of the propaganda media. The issue is re-framed and the reports are not news at all. The propaganda media has embraced the Orwellian New-speak of the Homosexual Equivalency movement. It is routinely used by the new Cultural Revolutionaries.
For years I have referred to the movement behind this Cultural Revolution as the Homosexual Equivalency Movement for very good reason. The leaders of this homosexual equivalency movement insist that homosexual sexual practices are morally equivalent to the sexual expression of marital love between a man and a woman.
However, they now go much further. They insist that every State make homosexual relationships legally equivalent to marriage and that the Federal Government become the enforcer of this new order.
They seek to build a society where the positive law of the Nation forces us all to call to be a marriage what can never be a marriage — or face the police power of the State and punitive sanctions.
Anyone who believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that other relationships between consenting adults are simply not the same, is a threat to the new homosexual equivalency activists. That includes all classical Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, along with many other people of faith and good will.
In fact, anyone who agrees with what the natural moral law confirms and what the cross cultural history of Nations has affirmed, that marriage is between one man and one woman, intended for life and formative of family, is now subjected to intense public ridicule and growing hostility.
In the charged climate of the new cultural revolution, supporting marriage as between one man and one woman has been turned on its rhetorical head. Proponents of the truth about real marriage are now routinely called anti-gay marriage. Worse yet, they are disparaged as being against something routinely called “marriage equality.”
Now, homosexual equivalency activists are engaging in the suppression of free speech and using bullying tactics against any who dare to disagree with them. They are using every media opportunity to engage in invective. They are too often cheered on in a media that is quickly losing any claim to objectivity.
John Aravosis is a lawyer who is a self identified practicing homosexual man. He is also a homosexual equivalency activist. He has decided to use his public position to bully everyone else into agreeing with his commitment to the cultural revolution which he now champions.
This exchange between John Aravosis and Amy Holmes was an example of verbal bullying. Amy Holmes was respectful, dignified and very persuasive in her entire presentation. However, she was treated with disdain by a rude, bellicose bully who is so zealous in his commitment to the new Cultural Revolution that he is acting like a self appointed enforcer of some new order.
In the brave new world of folks like John Aravosis, classical Christians, indeed anyone who disagrees with his position, are compared to holocaust deniers. His behavior on the air was repugnant.
So much for civil discourse, robust debate, or even the pretense of reasonable dialogue or disagreement; this man just 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 now in the crosshairs. 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 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 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 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.
The enforcers of the new order, whether ruling from the bench or misusing their office in the Legislative and Executive branch, unchecked by any balance of power, have followed what the legal positivists have long proclaimed, “The law is what the courts say it is.” Their enforcers, using the very willing platform of integrated media, are committed to silencing the supporters of marriage. This is serious business.
Those who claim that accepting this redefining of true marriage out of existence is a matter of tolerance are the most intolerant. John Aravosis is an example of that. He may be a sign of what is to come. However, even some within the homosexual community, such as Andrew Sullivan, recognize the danger. In an insightful piece entitled “The Hounding of a Heretic,” Sullivan writes:
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 get ready for what lies ahead. The proponents of a new cultural order have unveiled their long planned strategy of forcing their brave new world on the rest of us and allowing for no dissent. Notice how intolerant they are of those of us who, though respecting the dignity of every person, including homosexuals, insist that marriage is what it is, between one man and one woman.
All people of good will who recognize the vital role that marriage and family serve in the formation of a truly just society 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 efforts to undermine all three.
This is a Mozilla Moment. The belligerent effort to silence supporters of marriage is now fully underway. We will not, we must not, be silenced.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.