Please note that the “news” reporting of this “controversy” follows the tried and true mainstream media formula of, “Congressman Jones, your Democrat opponents accuse you of eating small children for breakfast. Many Americans are wondering whether you put ketchup or tobasco sauce on them.”
From the self-appointed guardians of the first amendment we hear not a peep of principled defense for free conscience, free thought or free speech, much less common decency. Too bad for Miss CA that she wasn’t burning Old Glory, or ranting against the U.S. Military. She wouldn’t want for pop culture or big media defenders then.
I would suggest that no movement excels homosexual activists in dealing in hate. Not the Skinheads, not the Feminists, not even President Obama negotiating with Chrysler’s Corporate Bond holders. But of course, this is the GOOD hate. After all, homosexuals are an oppressed minority. The law prevents them from marrying the person they want to. Well, welcome to the real world you bunch of crybabies. None of us boys got to marry Raquel Welch, even though we grew up wanting to, and now that we are married men, the law prevents us from marrying the old gal, even if she wanted to. One of your swishy icons, Mick Jagger, made the point pretty well when he croaked, "you can't always get what you want."
Rick Santorum didn’t go far enough, commenting on the Lawrence decision, because he only noted (albeit correctly) that having established a constitutional right to perversion, the Court had left no permissable legislative barrier to bigamy, bestiality or even Liberalism (ok, I may have added that last part myself).
Santorum accurately identified the legal stakes, but the real rest of the story is the TOTALITARIAN character of homosexual activism. Not only may we not pass laws to restrict the practice of homosexual perversion, but we may not even THINK thoughts against the practice, propagation and celebration of homosexual perversion. On the contrary, as illustrated by the Miss California episode, we are not merely forbidden by the homosexual activists to think counter-revolutionary thoughts, we are required to think favorably about the mainstreaming of their abomination.
How then can we continue to identify as "Liberal," the political philosophy which, by both silence and affirmation, countenances such thought control.” Just what about such a political philosophy is Liberal? A more accurate term might be Radical Secular Socialist Totalitarianism – is that too much of a mouthful? How about, The Totalitarian Political Philosophy Formerly Known As Liberalism. My Dad always loved a good acronym, maybe that would help. Something like Liberalism Is More Precisely Radical Secular Socialist Totalitarianism or LIMPRSST (pronounced Limp Wrist).
William Bennett famously wrote of “The Death of Outrage.” A decade later the coroner's report on our side is inconclusive, but you can be certain that Outrage is alive and well among homosexual activists, and what outrages them is not the dishonoring of the hallowed institutions of our civilization, but anyone daring to disagree with them.
For the sake of our vanishing free republic, I pray that Carrie Prejean would have a spine of steel, and that God would graciously grant an Ollie-North-Moment, when a little person, targeted for routine destruction, speaks truth to power, and the veil is momentarily blown aside, allowing the American People a glimpse of the Leftist Beast. They won’t like what they see.