HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE NEW TOTALITARIANISM

 SOME THOUGHTS ON WHERE THINGS ARE GOING…

As if someone thought that marriage needed a legal defense; as if thousands of years ago someone should have said, “hey, if we don’t codify this in law, this being the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, well then the title married can be given to anybody living in a relationship.”

    The framers of the constitution didn’t think that was necessary, therefore it must be that homosexuals have a right to marriage; because the framers did think to make people equal under the law. 

   That is almost as silly as to think that the framers should have thought to mention that unborn children should be protected human beings.  Since they didn’t think of it, and didn’t mention that pregnancy does not involve only one person, but three, and didn’t mention that if technology allows a choice it is not solely about her own body but actually involves the life and body of another, well then it is obvious, “legally” the baby is not protected, and the mother’s “right to privacy” is protected.  It is ironic that they didn’t really mention the right to privacy either.

   If Law is King while being obtuse (lacking sensibility) Law thus becomes nonsense.  To detach law from all the cultural and historical understandings on which it is built does not make it progressive, it makes it incendiary.  It in fact releases us from the moral, social consensus, and constraint we had hoped Law would give us and brings us back to violence, self-interest, tribalism, and sectarian opinion.  We face this problem in criminal law when murders and perpetrators of horrendous crimes are let go or not arrested for “technical” reasons or sophistries.  What was meant to protect us from vigilantism and taking the “law into our own hands” does in fact push us to just that reality.  The very phrase “law into our own hands” implies there is another Law other than the ones used by the system.  This is the Law by which human beings have operated since we have had some moral sense, that there is justice and that there is injustice.  That blood cries out for blood, that innocents raped and mutilated must have some kind of vengeance to show that their life was worthwhile, otherwise the dead die in silence and all we are allowed to hear is the whining of the criminal and our hearts are deceived into bleeding for him.

    We are in the midst of political game playing, and the game is played with law, but it is not the Law by which our civilization and culture were framed.  This is a run-a-way freight train, and the people in the engine care not for the ways the tracks have been laid. 

    In California was it necessary for a judge simply to ignore thousands of years of human and moral history and tell us that is not a legal argument?  We ask with incredulity and sarcasm, “No kidding?” Legal arguments should not be needed for some things.  This was the very basis of the moral suasion pressed upon us in the fight against slavery and the fight against racial segregation.  It was not an argument based on laws, but upon a greater Law, and thus upon the very basis of morality.  Without that moral suasion America could not have been changed as to its racial laws and culture.

     Religious arguments are dismissed as having no force of Law.  They will come back in force and no matter what Jurists say the advocacy of their Truth will remain.  We have had too much of a small powerful and well financed group of hedonistic individuals pressing for the redefinition of their lifestyle as normative.  Though it seems to have always existed, it has always existed as perverse, unnatural, immoral, and biologically unproductive.  Ironically it suffers from the damnation of both evolutionary and religious dogma; that is the historical case.

    Gay Right activists undermine moral judgment in our body politic by appealing to something very dear to Americans, and that is our concept of justice.  Freedom and justice (in the minds of many people) is directly equated with morality.  However, a behavior that is intrinsically immoral cannot by its legalization produce justice but will in the end deprive all of us of it. They have a moral case that no one should dehumanize them and no one should physically attack and harm them.  Human Rights should always be maintained, even for those we might despise, but immorality is not a right.  My argument has nothing to do with hating people, and it is no doubt difficult for some to hate certain behaviors while still loving the people involved.  I am sure it is equally difficult for others to hear that their behavior is hated and still feel loved. If their behavior is indeed immoral then their behavior should not be tolerated, nor protected, and certainly not celebrated.

     If our country is forced to codify everything upon which our morality and culture has been built we are in for one tedious ride.  To correct this it may mean a clean sweep of all legislators who would dare to allow evil in the name of civil rights so that it makes a mockery of our decency and humanity. 

    I realize how those in opposition to my views can seek to make this the cry of a hypocrite. The press and popular media always seems to make a moral voice a target by assuming that such a voice sets itself up as self-righteous and without sin.  I am enough of an experienced sinner, living in the midst of sinners to know that immoral people can still have moral voices.  We all have clay feet, we all have sexual struggles and temptations.  The debate on homosexuality has made it so that homosexuals can have no hypocrisy, their behavior has become sacrosanct.  What a farce.  Adultery is wrong, and always will be wrong.  Yet sexual promiscuity among homosexuals is well, just being homosexual.  We will demand resignations of Senators caught in adultery, especially Republicans, and get it.  But yet it seems the other party is cut quite a bit of slack in their personal morality.  We in fact recalibrate morality so as not to sound self-righteous.

   We have spent a good amount of time in the military trying to protect women from the natural and normal amorous advances of men by seeking to professionalize them, and by making the boundary lines clear between normal socialization and that of fraternization and stalking.  What will do about homosexuals who are free to pursue their love targets?  Will it be against the law to deprive them of their “natural” right to hit on other men or other women?

    Moral voices need to come out of the closet, or the sound proof room at any rate.  We have a great amount of our population forming moral opinions while lost in moral ambiguity, and this is where the game is played out.  Our younger generation is deceived by the pseudo intellectualized power of mockery, satire, and ridicule riding the horse of supposed oppression. The media is not an open forum, and seeks to create the drumbeat of inevitable progress against ‘homophobia.”  To have a discordant opinion is to be slandered, shamed, and silenced. 

    There is no New World to which we can run away and start over again, we are not going to colonize Mars so that we won’t have to put up with this nastiness.  If we allow this 1.5 percent of the population to overwhelm us maybe we have no right to a country where we really will have freedom of religion.  The enforcement, and it is a totalitarian enforcement, of the acceptance of homosexuality deprives the rest of us of our right to freedom of religion and our freedom of speech.  We are taught at a very early age in this country that our forefathers fought and died to preserve those rights. Homosexual marriage is part of the construction of an edifice of normality for that which is immoral, and should always be considered abnormal, and that construction must not only be hindered it must be destroyed.

Randy Nabors, August 2010/Posted 2011