The Brewing Gay Power Grab

It is a sad time we live in when one has to start with this announcement: I know and have known quite a few gay people and get along with almost all of them.

I say this merely to forestall the accusation of homophobia from those on the loonie left fringe. Disagreeing with the gay rights’ movement is not a crime yet but it most likely will be soon, judging by recent developments in society. The thought police over at the Human Rights Campaign and their agents across the political establishment have now managed to squeeze Boston Catholic Charities out of the adoption business. Their method is as shocking as the headlines announcing the charity’s withdrawal as an adoption agency: by imposing pro-gay compliance laws on society.

A highly recommended feature article by Maggie Gallagher in the May 15 issue of Weekly Standard explains exactly how Boston Catholic Charities were forced to throw in the towel. Needless to say, the judicial tyranny that reigns in Massachussetts has much to do with it. When that state’s Supreme Court ruled that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional homophobia, it automatically granted gay couples the right to adopt. The Catholic charity, which excludes such couples from their adoption services, thereby came to be in violation of Massachussetts’ non-discrimination laws. Rather than wait for the first lawsuit to be brought against them, they decided to save the money and disband the adoption service altogether. A sad but wise move because already the gay rights’ movement is so powerful that a court case would have been a long drawn out affair and almost certainly have led to a gay victory in yet another court.

At the same time, gay rights activists elected to the California state Senate have managed to push a bill through the legislature that would make gay indoctrination mandatory in California’s schools. The state assembly is less likely to follow orders from the gay rights lobby, but chances that the bill is approved are not so slim as to laugh it off as another stunt. If it is approved and Gov. Schwarzenegger cannot find the backbone to veto it, children as young as primary school age could be taught the virtues of the same-sex lifestyle as soon as 2012—by government decree.

These are very scary developments. In the name of equality, the gay rights movement is twisting more and more political and judicial arms to impose dictatorial laws requiring compliance with the gay goose step on more and more parts of the country. Make no mistake, the California bill and the Massachussetts gay marriage ruling are as much symptoms of the breakdown of democracy as any other example of dictatorial repression you can think of.

Of course, what gay rights activists are saying is that gays are persecuted by unjust laws in the same way that black people were persecuted by Jim Crow. It’s a despicable accusation. African Americans were denied equal rights in equal situations. This is not the case with gay people. It is already illegal to discriminate against gay people in situations where sexual preference is irrelevant. Gay people already have the right to marry—just as soon as they find an opposite-sex partner they can go to any justice of the peace to get married, like any heterosexual person. Gay people are not denied anything that heterosexual people are not denied also.

It is important to realize that gay rights activists want extra and new rights specifically for them. Not only do they want to live together with their same-sex lover (against which there are no laws), they also want to have the state-recognized rights and benefits of heterosexual marriage, despite the fact that they do not qualify for the terms and conditions of marriage. Already many states and corporations award health benefits to unmarried couples of the same sex. Interestingly enough, these same institutions deny these same benefits to unmarried couples of the opposite sex. Special privileges for special people.

It seems that, in the words of George Orwell, the gay rights movement believes that “some animals are more equal than others” after all.