In the arena of political discourse, a “straw man” is often a weak or extreme argument one side in a debate falsely attributes to their opponents. It’s an age-old tactic that presents a nice-sounding argument that is, in reality, easily refuted or “knocked down.”
That is the tactic now being used to defend the court-ordered legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts last year.
With over 6,000 same-sex couples “wedding” in the Bay State since May 2004, proponents of this change are crying, “See, the sky didn’t fall. The world hasn’t come to an end. And everything is just lovely!”
However, virtually no one in support of authentic marriage ever said that marriage would be destroyed or the country would fall into anarchy the moment same-sex “marriage” in one corner of our nation became a temporary reality. Setting up and knocking down this kind of straw man may feel good, but it does little to deal with the real issues involved.
It’s a bit like a “friend” of a patient with slow-growing cancer saying, “Don’t worry, your cancer really isn’t affecting your health yet. Everything’s fine.” This is a much more apt analogy. Furthermore, the other side calls what is distorted “good,” so it’s no surprise they don’t see a problem.
The pro-family community has always maintained that the oxymoron of same-sex “marriage” is detrimental to the institutions of marriage and family, harmful to children, and ultimately destructive to our society. Nothing taking place in Massachusetts over the last 15 months or so has altered that prognosis. You see, this debate is really not about “equal rights,” as the proponents of homosexual behavior like to frame it, but about redefining marriage, family, and, yes, American culture. And such things don’t happen over night (they’re not designed to).
Nonetheless, if allowed to proceed, like the proverbial frog in the pot, we may well wake up one day in the not-too-distant future to find that marriage and family have lost all present meaning.
If that sounds extreme, consider this comment by activist Michaelangelo Signorile, who ardently promotes homosexual behavior:
[You should] fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the definition of marriage entirely. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake is to transform the definition of “family” entirely.
This is no idle or isolated threat, but a definitive statement of their strategy. In Sweden, the Feminist Initiative, a new political party, has already essentially called for the abolition of marriage as the next step of “progress” in their nation, promoting instead “a cohabitation law that ignores gender and allows more than two people in a partnership.”
Of course, when put to a vote, the American people overwhelmingly reject the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” So the demands of homosexual activists depend heavily on activist judges to either command state legislatures to rewrite long-standing marriage laws, as in Massachusetts, or to declare laws—even state constitutions—that seek to preserve marriage unconstitutional.
Since the Massachusetts court order, this very thing has been happening. If radicals have their way, they will effectively nullify the clear will of the people and further erode the foundations of our republic. Ultimately, they hope to have this issue settled by the Supreme Court, which is one of the reasons President Bush’s final Supreme Court nominee will likely undergo intense scrutiny.
Nonetheless, even in left-leaning congressional districts in New England, it remains far from certain that the people want same-sex “marriage.” Outraged over blatant judicial tyranny exercised by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, signatures are being gathered for a constitutional amendment, supported by Gov. Mitt Romney, preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman so that it can go before the people for a vote. Even where the media says the fight is “over,” the people want to have their say.No, the sky hasn’t fallen yet because of the actions of a few arrogant judges in Massachusetts. But make no mistake: the goals of those who would impose same-sex “marriage” on this country are nothing short of subversive, and they don’t care if the sky does fall. In order to validate their sexual choices, activists in support of homosexual behavior will stop at nothing—even if it means destroying marriage, redefining the family (so that it can mean virtually anything), outlawing all opposition as “hate speech,” and undermining our precious heritage of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”