Eminent political theorist and human rights advocate Pat Boone thinks so.
What troubles me so deeply, and should trouble all thinking Americans, is that there is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists. Hate is hate, no matter where it erupts. And by its very nature, if it's not held in check, it will escalate into acts vile, violent and destructive.
Pat is correct about hate. Unfortunately he forgets that the de-legitimation of same gender preference in American cultural and social structures results in acts of hate as well. But that does not matter since the rights that gay persons are demanding do not really exist. He is also right about a sexual jihad. Unfortunately he completely denigrates the real sexual jihad that continues against women all over the world (see picture above of a teenger getting stoned to death in Iraq because she dated a boy of the wrong religion).
Reversing the pronouncement of hate simply ignores the legislated marginalization of those who prefer the same gender from equal regard under federal and state law. Yes, there have been disorderly protests from certain groups that would like to represent the gay community. There will always be violence in the face of inequality. These protests happen when a minority community's peaceful protests have gone unheeded. It is an inevitable consequence in a society that allows the freedom to assemble when those who assemble are not equally regarded by the government. While this is not an excuse, it is a rationale that Boone chooses to ignore.
These are not acts of hate, they are acts of a group that has lost patience in the face of injustice. They do not want every one to be gay some day, they want to have the freedom to be gay in a society that will not allow them to be so. Islamists want everyone to be Islamists just like them or die. Gay people could care less if you are gay. Not to see that difference is horrifically stupid and ignorant.
That marriage includes in its definition some members of society and not others, and that marriage is regarded as a privilege by federal and state governments means that some Americans cannot attain to the same privileges as other Americans solely based on their sexual preference.
Yet a reaction against the arbitrary exclusion of one's sexuality from the law of the land that refuses to offer equal regard is somehow seen as a jihadist pro-active sentiment to see homogeneity of belief? It's not only a pathetic understanding of jihad and Islamism, but's it's a denigration of the freedom that we have in America to protest injustice. Clinging to anachronistic definition does not absolve the inequalities said definition creates among people. Placing the word rights in scare quotes does not change a clear logical inequality the definition of marriage creates.
There are two solutions to this: 1) get rid of references to marriage altogether in state and federal policy, or 2) remove the " and woman" language from the definition. The former is the more reasonable and expedient course since it gets rid of the discussion of "definition" upon which folks like Boone or Mike Huckabee get hung up. Will they budge to prefer reason? No. Why? They want to legislate their religious preference and maintain a socieity ordered by those ideological premises. Tell me where that clause is located in the Constitution Pat?
HT: Reason Hit & Run
Related posts:
