What's In A Word?
The re-defining of terms in the same-sex marriage debate by the San Francisco Chronicle today begs a question they don't want you to ask...
America's most gay-loyal mainstream newspaper, The San Francisco Chronicle, today issued a shameless endorsement of the railroading of the same-sex marriage bill back into play in the California Senate . Aside from how they whitewashed the deceptive tactics of the bill's author, homosexual legislator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), in getting the bill reheard even after it was voted down by the Assembly, the transparent way they couch the terms of the argument reveals alot.
Example: They called it "The Right To Marry Bill". This is totally false. Homosexuals already have the right to marry in the same way I do, namely to choose any person over 18 who is of the opposite sex and not directly blood related. What they want is a "SUPER Right To Marry Bill" that lets them violate every rite of every society that has ever sustained itself in the history of the world. Since I have a vested interest in seeing America continue into my kids' future, I'm not interested in that agenda.
Example: They call it a "gender-neutral definitionof marriage". Even coming from the political mavens who invented gender politics, this is laughable. Gender is an invented word when it comes to thisdiscussion. The applicalble word is sexuality. It is impossible to have a human being who is sexually neutral, except in certain rare and tragic physical cases. Therefore it is impossible to ever have a sexually neutral marriage. This gender-neutral language is pure nonsense. Evasive, pretensive wordsmithing. But since their readers are California educated, they believe this tripe.
The curious way they redefine terms in the marriage debate raises an equally curious question: if marriage can be manipulated, redefined, and tossed around this easily, what solid identity and value does it really have?
The answer: in the gay lobby's eyes, traditional marriage has only one element of value, and that is that homsexuals can't have it just yet, in California anyway. That is its only value. The Chron editors even said as much, when they admitted that although domestic partnerships in California already give homosexual couples nearly every right of marriage right now, this is still, in their words, "no substitute for marriage.". And that's the point. Their objective is to gain a controlling interest in marriage, and then to abandon it, as they have done in every European culture in which they have won their way into the institution. Sort of like a hostile takeover of a company by an investor who buys the plant on a Monday and sells it for scrap and a quick profit on Tuesday.
Well, sorry, at my house the family business ain't for sale.
Joe Pursch is heard nightly on AM 710 KFIA from 5-7PM PST, streamed live on the Internet at www.kfia.com.
You can contact him at realtalk@kfia.com.