Have you noticed the anger about Stephen Harper’s pledge to introduce a piece of legislation declaring that marriage is a man and woman thang? (The writer is desperately trying to accommodate all those sophisticates who think conventional marriage is only for hillbillies.)
Now just in case you don’t know me, know this. I have never opposed gay marriage. As I used to tell the openly gay mayor of Winnipeg when he wanted to play the homophobe card, “Sorry, man. You’ve got the wrong huckleberry. I don’t give a lick who you lick.”
This is simply my way of saying that I’m fine with gay marriage. I don’t blame gays for defiling and degrading that great institution. Contrary to Nazi opinion, the Jews didn’t burn down Germany’s parliament and homosexuals didn’t trash marriage. We heteros did it.
Our courts declared that divorce is nobody’s fault. Our soap operas glorified cheating. Our videos sexualized our children. Our great scholars refer to pro-family groups as religious extremists. In the minds of many of our professional chatterers and writers, marriage will be as essential to the body called Canada as panties are to Paris Hilton.
While I am OK with gays wanting to get under the marriage tent, I am not OK with gay rights advocates declaring that everyone I know who is opposed to gay marriage is a homophobe.
Declaring that others have a mental disorder simply because they don’t agree with you is not only rude. It’s bigotry. And when all the usual suspects come forward to tell you that gay marriage is a human right, that’s just flat-out stupidity.
Human beings understand what human rights violations are. They don’t need them interpreted by Liberal-appointed judges or other Liberal hacks who never concern themselves with marshalling the soldiers of reason in the battle theatre of ideas.
When Paul Martin is asked whether he supports gay marriage he doesn’t give you a straight answer. He starts to lean on all this witchcraft about the charter of rights and how judges interpret the charter which contains not one atomic particle about gay marriage.
Question for the prime minister. When one tribe in Rwanda was chopping the heads off members of another tribe, did you need a Liberal judge to explain to you that human rights were being violated? In the 1940s when children were being separated from their mothers at Auschwitz and herded into ovens, would you have needed a Liberal judge to explain how human rights were being incinerated?
If gay marriage is a human right, how come those mighty international human rights tribunals do not declare it so? Are all those who sit at those benches a bunch of homophobes?
Stephen Harper may not have a telegenic personality. He may exhaust three minutes instead of three seconds to answer the question, “Do you love your country?” But does any honest citizen believe he should be “diagnosed” a homophobe or branded a human rights violator because he wants to legally enshrine marriage as an arrangement involving a man and a woman?
By the way, if Canada’s sociologists are correct in saying that the average gay and lesbian purchases more goods and services than the straights, would it be homophobic to oppose Mr. Harper’s plans to trim the GST tree?
The tax cut will benefit gays and lesbians more than the heteros.
Got a problem with that, Mr. Martin?
- “Le Petit Green Machine” stumbling - Monday February 19, 2007 at 9:49 am
- A sour note on CanCon music regs - Wednesday May 17, 2006 at 7:36 am
- Liberals are now officially ‘scary’ - Wednesday May 10, 2006 at 12:43 pm
