The love that now dares you

National Post Canada ^ | June 24, 2003 | Hugo Gurdon

[Polycarp]

The love that now dares you

Hugo Gurdon National Post

Tuesday, June 24, 2003

WASHINGTON - The destruction of marriage in Canada was announced with Jean Chrétien's usual insouciance. "You have to look at history as an evolution of society," said the Prime Minister, eating his cake and having it too. Without a fight he sweeps aside an institution more ancient than the history he invokes, yet asks to be treated as a spectator. "According to the interpretation of the courts, these unions should be legal in Canada." I've led the country for a decade, he suggests, but don't shoot me -- I'm only the piano player.

Looking at events from the American side of the border, the cartoonist Oliphant drew two Mounties at the altar. The officiating priest asks if anyone can show cause why the two should not be married, then sees Uncle Sam at the back and tells him to stay quiet.

The impression given is false, for although "gay marriage" is not yet legal across the United States, Americans who have not abandoned the traditional belief that homosexual coupling is unnatural or sinful, must increasingly conceal their feelings. Even those who believe neither of those things and regard gay unions as a private matter are now expected to silence their wish that it would stay private rather than be publicly flaunted.

A week before Mr. Chrétien sloughed marriage on to the ash heap, the U.S. Senate's judiciary committee considered President Bush's nomination of Alabama's Attorney General William Pryor to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Senator Russell Feingold asked Mr. Pryor, a devout Roman Catholic, whether it was true that he and his wife rescheduled a trip to Walt Disney World with their two young children because it would have coincided with Gay Day, an annual event there. (Disney ain't what it used to be).

In a tone suggesting that he believed he'd found the smoking gun, Sen. Feingold said: "News accounts also report that you even went so far as to reschedule a family vacation at Disney World in order to avoid Gay Day."

Mr. Pryor: "My wife and I had two daughters who at the time of that vacation were six and four, and we made a value judgment. And that was our personal decision ..."

Feingold: "Well, I certainly respect going to Disney World with two daughters. I've done the same thing. But are you saying that you actually made that decision on purpose to be away at the time of that."

Pryor: "We made a value judgment and changed our plan and went another weekend."

Feingold: "Well, I -- I appreciate your candor on that."

In other words -- Boy, he admits it and everything! Can you believe this guy? Has he no shame?

Maybe Sen. Feingold was merely being disingenuous in his repeated expressions of astonishment; one hopes so. But sadly he probably really believes the Pryors' decision was extreme.

So what is Gay Day? National Review Online posted links to pictures taken on that occasion in Disney's public spaces. In one, a man sucks on a beer bottle protruding from the unzipped trousers of another man. There were several other scenes like that. Are these appropriate for young children? Or for a decent, self-respecting society? When men and women are involved in such scenes, most people acknowledge them to be tacky. Spring break rarely passes without a few nose-held news accounts of the bacchanalia. In high school, if heterosexual students get shamelessly physical in public, their peers are likely to tell them to "keep it in your pants."

But criticism, or even a quiet personal decision to avoid contact with homosexual practice and culture is frowned on. Mr. and Mrs. Pryor's private decision brings down on their heads the implied accusation of bigotry. An upstanding and outstanding lawyer is pilloried in the supposedly august U.S. Senate for not subjecting his small children to scenes of homosexual debauch.

In Canada, Christian conscience is no excuse for refusing to print literature that promotes homosexuality. And Christian conscience will not excuse a small, family-run bed and breakfast if it chooses not to accept the custom of homosexual men who wish to share a bed.

It is becoming unacceptable in Western society -- in much of Europe, as in North America -- to live by the moral code upon which this civilization was built and has guided every generation except today's. Natural law, customs, mores, and the complex of arrangements arrived at down the ages by a sophisticated people are being demolished. That is what we mean today by tolerance. The love that once dared not speak its name, now dares you to speak your disapproval.

Hugo Gurdon is editor-in-chief of The Hill.

© Copyright 2003 National Post

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I predict the wet panties brigade will be here shortly and the round-robin assaults will begin.

You seem rather anxious to get started.

[jellybean]

You seem rather anxious to get started.

Are you threatening me with round-robin assaults?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Of course not. I just wonder why, if you find the "round-robin assaults" so unpleasant, you would come along and throw the first punch with your name-calling, inflammatory post.

But of course, it's always the other guy's fault.

[jpsb]

I knew you were kidding, just took the opprotunity to blow of some steam. During the last nation election I was repeatedly told that if we elect W, things will change. Well we elected W and things have not got any better. Taxes are up, spending is up, government is growing faster then with Clinton. I can't wait to hear the reason I should vote for W next election. It will probably be the same old "lessor of two evil" argument, but guess what right now I'd say Clinton was a better president then Bush. At least he didn't grow governement any where near as fast as Bush is.

[jellybean]

I called no one out by name. You seem a little defensive.

[optimistically_conservative]

I can't help but think that when your moral position condemned inter-religious relationships, inter-racial relationships and limited legal sex to the missionary position, you lost the ability to stand on the high ground but joined a battle with an indefensible argument in the valleys of human prejudicial behavior.

A smart strategist would see this as a opportunity to redefine the tenants of debate and offer new battle cries.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

You seem a little defensive.

Me? No. I'm not defensive for myself - I don't have "wet panties" (incredibly crude of you, by the way) over President Bush - but I'll tell you what. Those of you who toss insults around at others and then play the victim when someone calls you on it ought to take a good, long look in the mirror.

Most people understand that they'll be treated with the amount of respect they give others. If you wanted honest debate, you would approach others respectfully.

Obviously, that's not what you're looking for at all.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

It will probably be the same old "lessor of two evil" argument, but guess what right now I'd say Clinton was a better president then Bush.

I don't really understand how this thread became about President Bush, but I believe I've heard it all now.

[justshe]

"...right now I'd say Clinton was a better president then Bush."

You have GOT to be kidding!

[jellybean]

Oh well, color me crude...

Y'all have fun...

[jpsb]

No, Bush is doing a much better job of implementing socalism then Clinton. Bush makes Clinton look conservative.

[jordan8]

Excellent piece. Results of the Television Dictatorship, which, to a very large degree, overrides Democrat or Republican, elections, or the rule of law.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Bush makes Clinton look conservative.

Not at all true, and entirely off-topic. Could we please not turn every thread into the same discussion?

[First Amendment]

I can't help but think that when your moral position condemned inter-religious relationships, inter-racial relationships

What the ---?? Did you read my post carefully? Please re-read my post agagin and tell me what you disagree with. And did I mention race??

[First Amendment]

A smart strategist would see this as a opportunity to redefine the tenants of debate and offer new battle cries.

Please be specific here - what are you actually saying?

[GladesGuru]

"The Church Kills Gays" ??? - - - one can make a case that many seminaries (no pun intended!) have been taken over by open homosexuals. The resulting homosexual priests nearly destroyed the Church, not the Church destroying homosexuals.

Out of control homosexuals are acceptable in some parts of South Beach. They have proven themselves to be grossly inappropriate inside the Church hierarchy.

So to speak, they have been tried and been found wanton.

[Desdemona]

The impression given is false, for although "gay marriage" is not yet legal across the United States, Americans who have not abandoned the traditional belief that homosexual coupling is unnatural or sinful, must increasingly conceal their feelings. Even those who believe neither of those things and regard gay unions as a private matter are now expected to silence their wish that it would stay private rather than be publicly flaunted.

Very true. And there is nothing more oppressive than the supression of free speech. Talk about tyranny, just to state in an unapologetic tone, and nowhere close to pursuasive, just stating it, that you do not believe homosexuality is moral, nor are there any special "rights" for people who engage in the lifestyle, is enough to ruin careers in some professions.

And then there's the public health aspect....

[Desdemona]

Out of control homosexuals are acceptable in some parts of South Beach. They have proven themselves to be grossly inappropriate inside the Church hierarchy.

Not to disagree, but out of control homosexuals are inappropriate everywhere - even South Beach.

[Mr. Mojo]

most women aren't as deeply troubled by "gays" as the men are. This is my personal experience when I talk to women about this thing.

Although many women aren't troubled by homos in theory, they change their tune very quickly if they ever actually see what homos do in practice. An old girlfriend of mine had a very "tolerant" view of them once, but one day when her parents were out of town and she was babysitting her 16 yr old brother, she came home early just to find her younger sibling engaged in the act with another boy his age. After that visual, combined with the smell of sh/t in the house, and she changed her tune about faggots very quickly.

I'd imagine that the vast majority of straight people who see no problem with "Gay Day" at Disney World would be absolutely appalled if they actually attended such an event.