Saturday, February 26, 2011

America's Gay White House

By Alan Caruba

A news item by Agence Press France flew under the radar of many American news media. On February 25th it reported that “The White House on Friday named Jeremy Bernard to serve as social secretary to President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama, the first male and first openly gay person to hold the position.”

Barack Obama, married and father of two girls, may be straight, but he has proven to be the most active President when it comes to efforts that would establish homosexuality as a “normal” lifestyle in America. He is not alone in this; it is the goal of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender movement (GLBT) in America.

While I fully expect to evoke howls from the GLBT movement in saying this, the fact remains that no where in nature is homosexuality the norm. It is always an aberration because heterosexuality ensures the propagation of any and all species. It is abnormal for members of the same sex to prefer one another. The recognition of this fact reaches back to the origins of humanity.

I am not advocating that homosexuals be stoned, hanged, or denied their civil rights. Gays (I will use the term to describe homosexuals of both genders and all those who are confused about their gender) are protected by the 14th Amendment, passed in 1886 after the Civil War to ensure that Afro-American’s civil rights were not abridged or denied.

I have always thought that “gay” was an odd choice of words to describe homosexuals because those whom I have known rarely evinced much happiness about being regarded by the rest of society as aberrations. They may have made their personal peace with it, but the notion that a society based on heterosexuality should regard them as “normal” defies logic.

Granting homosexuals the right to marry is an act of societal suicide. I will cite some examples below.

In late February, the White House and its Department of Justice announced that it would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It is a warning of moral decay that America has reached a point where it requires a law to assert this definition, recognized from the dawn of civilization, of mankind itself.

Attorney General Eric Holder noted that federal agencies would continue to abide by the act, but made it clear that he and the President consider it unconstitutional. No where in the U.S. Constitution is there any reference to homosexuality, nor a suggestion that it is normal. It is being challenged by homosexuals in a number of court cases including Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts.

Robin McGehee, director of GetEQUAL, which describes itself as a national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, said, “For 15 years DOMA has been a thorn in the side of the LGBT community, preventing loving couples from being fully equal under the law.” They are fully equal. They just can’t get married because marriage is the keystone of society. Weakening the definition of marriage can only serve to weaken society.

When Massachusetts’ Supreme Court, on November 18, 2003, announced its Goodridge opinion, ruling that it was unconstitutional to not allow same-sex “marriage” it opened the floodgates to events that have appalled much of that state’s heterosexual population.

It particularly hit the school systems throughout Massachusetts. There were instances of school assemblies to celebrate same-sex “marriage” and swiftly moved from middle to elementary schools where the teaching of homosexuality became part of the curriculum. Kindergartners were given picture books that depicted homosexual “marriage” as just another kind of family, second graders were exposed to a book, “King and King” about two men who have a romance and marry with a picture of them kissing. School libraries across the state instituted shelves of books presenting homosexual behavior as normal. “Gay days” in schools were considered necessary to fight “intolerance.”

This is giving parents fits, but it was President Obama who installed Kevin Jennings as the White House “safe schools” czar in the Department of Education even though Jennings is a major homosexual activist who has pushed the homosexual agenda in the nation’s schools. Jennings, prior to his appointment, was the founder and executive director of the nationwide Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network.

President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to a lifetime position as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court despite her activism as Dean of the Harvard Law School during which she expelled military recruiters over the Armed Forces’ ban on homosexuals. She called it a “moral injustice of the first order.” She was known for recruiting homosexual activists to the school’s faculty such as the former ACLU lawyer, William Rubenstein, to teach “queer” legal theory and elevated an outspoken lesbian professor, Janet Halley. She encouraged Harvard students to get involved in homosexual activist legal work.

These White House appointments are just one part of what millions of Americans have come to realize as measures taken to undermine the nation’s moral authority, its legal system, its economy, its military strength and defense, and its energy security.

In 2012 Americans will clean house in the White House and the Congress, electing men and women who understand that homosexuality is an unfit condition for marriage, for service in the military, and that its justification in the states and the courts is a stealth attack on the nation.

© Alan Caruba, 2011


nickels said...

Well said, Alan. Recently there was a survey (in the UK I think) of people who declared themselves 'Gay'. Only 1-2% of the population stated this in, what I believe would have been a confidential survey where no names would have been recorded. Yet the amount of noise these advocacy groups make would convince you that they are 50% of the population!

mmpaints said...

Alan, I am ashamed to call myself American now. I am personally horrified and I imagine the rest of the world is flat laughing it's ass off at the sissy-fied Americans and their "gay" supporting (fraud) President. Excuse me while I barf.

Conway said...

Your article puts it in a much more, shall I say, eloquent way than I ever would, but it essentially reflects the stance I have.

Evolutionally, homosexuals have no place at all in the scheme of reproduction, which, putting human emotions aside, is the only discernible reason that complex living animals continue to exist on Earth; this includes the race of man.

Culturally, homosexuality will never be accepted as a normative lifestyle, as they are perhaps 10% of the population at maximum. Aversion and even antipathy to such individuals by the general populace probably has basis in evolution as well, but no one wants to admit it.

I suspect that homosexuality may be a birth defect, though homosexuals I have conversed with vehemently deny such a conjecture to the point of anger, telling me that it was a personal choice. I think that stance is just as obtuse as the religious, particularly Christians, stating that sexual preference is a choice, and that it can be changed.

I cannot say for anyone else, but I always knew, even from early childhood, that I exclusively preferred the company of the opposite sex for intimate physical contact, i.e., girls or women, it was never a choice.

Alan Caruba said...

@Nickels. Thank you. The gay community has very good PR and one wonders how many in the media are in the closet?

Alan Caruba said...

@mmpaints. You can always be proud to call yourself an American. Even if we do have a very odd President.

Guy in Ohio said...

Just another example of the fantasy world that the left has "dragged" us into ... pun intended.

Desertrat said...

"Moral decay"? These last thirty or so years have unendingly kept reminding me of Heinlein's "Crazy Years".

Funny. There are two gay couples whom I've known for around thirty years. As people, they earned my respect long ago. They're real people, and they keep their private deal private. But as near as I can tell, they have as much scorn for the activist nonsense as I do.

TexasFred said...

I wonder if Obama doesn't swing both ways...

I'm not an eloquent writer... :)

Alan Caruba said...

@TexasFred: Maybe not eloguent, but there is much to be said for directness.

That is why I wrote that Onozo "may" be straight....

'nuff said.

Rachel P said...

I agree 100% with everything said here, Alan. I continue to remain frightened by the direction this country has gone and is going, on all fronts, not the least of which is the acceptance of the gay lifestyle as "normal".

LarryOldtimer said...

Then again, it is quite possible that Obama might well be bi-sexual, "swinging" both ways, and I personally think he is.

He is not the Supreme Court, and neither is Holden.

Keep in mind that justices on the Supreme Court can be impeached by the House, convicted of impeachment by the Senate for no more than "bad behavior", and it is Congress that makes that call, not subject to presidential action. One Supreme Court justice, as I recall, has been so removed in history.

EJ said...


Lexo said...

"While I fully expect to evoke howls from the GLBT movement in saying this, the fact remains that no where in nature is homosexuality the norm. It is always an aberration because heterosexuality ensures the propagation of any and all species. It is abnormal for members of the same sex to prefer one another. The recognition of this fact reaches back to the origins of humanity."

Homosexual behaviour has been observed among very many species besides humans. Many species of bird form lifelong same-sex pairings; male dolphins have been observed to sexually molest other male dolphins, etc. If it's not the 'norm' anywhere, it's because the genetic imperative to propagate the species pretty much overrides other concerns. If homosexuality is at least in part genetically determined, it's because it would have served a useful function in human society (which is the only reason genetic traits survive at all.)

But in any case, what you say is (besides being offensive) irrelevant, for at least three reasons. The first and most obvious one is that, since humans have developed language, and therefore have been able to develop complex moral and ethical codes of behaviour which are entirely unrelated to our genetic imperatives, we are not actually obliged (whatever you may believe to the contrary) to follow the dictates of our genes; we can decide not to do what our genes would like us to do. If that were not the case, we would routinely abandon the old and sick to die, and would probably be way more sexually promiscuous than we actually are. Another is that, contrary to what you and most of the rather feeble-minded comments on this post have said, LGBT people (of whom I'm not one, in case you were wondering) are not trying to enforce their behaviour and sexual preferences as a 'norm'; they just don't see why they should be penalised for them. It is not self-evident why people in a minority ought to be punished because they are in a minority.

But, even if it weren't the case that other species engage in same-sex sexual behaviour, even if humans were the only species where members of the same sex have sex with each other, that would still not be a good reason to make it illegal, or to penalise people who engaged in it. There is a very simple reason for this: just because something that humans do is not 'natural' does not mean it should be illegal or subject to legal penalty of some kind. The fastest speed ever clocked by a running human is about 25mph, so does that mean anyone driving a car faster than that should be considered disgusting and un-American? Humans can't fly using their own motive power; should people with pilot's licenses therefore be prevented from marrying? Humans can only hold their breath for so long, so should scuba diving be considered a sin?

You do not have an argument. I prefer not to speculate about where your comments actually stem from; certainly, it's not out of any genuine concern for the wellbeing of your fellow man. You would punish people for behaviour that you personally dislike, and you attempt to tart up your reasons for doing so with pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, but most of us are not fooled.

Alan Caruba said...

Lexo: I most certainly have an argument and lots of people read it and agreed with it.

I do not seek to "punish" people for aberrant behavior. I simply don't believe same-sex marriage serves the best interests of society.