The benefit of reading coverage of gay issues in the
conservative press is that you actually get some insight into what
anti-gay social conservatives think. For instance, in the Boston
Herald's story about a lawsuit before the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court seeking to allow same-sex marriage in that state,
virtually all we're told about the opposing side is that:
opponents of same-sex unions contend marriage is by definition a union of a man and a woman. Various organizations have submitted 15 amicus briefs contending that down through the ages, the concept of marriage always has involved a woman and a man.
Compare that with the story in the
Washington Times:
Their goal is to "get courts to destroy marriage as the union of male and female in one state," [Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage] said. "Once they have that, they will launch an attack in the name of false constitutional arguments on the marriage laws in all 50 states and the federal DOMA" he said, referring to the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Should the suit prove successful, the anti-gay groups will undoubtedly propose amending the state constitution -- and intensify nationwide efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution -- to bar gay unions. That's bad, but progress is seldom made without generating a reactionary response, and reaction can only be exposed and vanquished through vigorous and open debate.
Will GLAAD Be Sad?
Speaking of which... I've long been critical of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation -- a group in which I was active some 10 years ago -- for putting too much emphasis on trying to silence their opponents rather than countering their arguments in public debate. This is a flaw that runs throughout the 'politically correct' left, and is at its ugliest when even moderate conservatives are blocked from speaking on college campuses or else drowned out by cliques of shouting students determined to silence any views with which they disagree.
GLAAD is somewhat more dignified -- the group threatens to boycott sponsors of talkshow hosts who GLAAD believes are demeaning gay people (or, in pc parlance, LGBT people). As reported in the NY Post, GLAAD has teamed with the National Organization for Women to keep MSNBC from airing a new TV talk show with radio personality Michael Savage. However:
Savage is angrily threatening to counterattack "with all the abilities I have," including filing lawsuits and, if necessary, mobilizing his army of listeners. "I'm not Dr. Laura and I'm not going to lift my skirts and run," Savage told The Post, referring to the tough radio shrink whose 2000 TV show was set upon by gay-rights groups that scared away advertisers and, arguably, forced a toned-down program that few watched, resulting in an early demise.
"If we let these bastards win, they will have elevated themselves to being a de facto national television censorship board," said Savage.
Yes, folks, this could shape up as one pug-ugly fight,
especially if the GLAAD/NOW arsenal consists of nothing more than
trying to mau mau the network and its sponsors. Frankly, I'd let
Savage expose himsef, so to speak. Sunlight is often the best
disinfectant.
--Stephen H. Miller
Recent Postings