Perhaps Gay Marriage Is an Economic Issue, Mr. Barron
"This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue, nor should it be interpreted as a political blank check." -- Open letter signed by Christopher Barron
I'm going to open with a politically-incorrect question: How can civilizations divorce social realities from economic issues? After all, Republicans in Congress are being urged by Christopher Barron and his supporters "to avoid social issues [code for "gay marriage" and abortion] and focus instead on issues of economic freedom and individual liberty."
Yet, marriage is an economic issue. Aborting useless eaters is a freedom issue. And if Christopher Barron's tribal GOProud, a self-proclaimed conservative group for homosexuals, transgendered people, and their allies doesn't believe me, he is welcome to borrow my copy of Guilty, by Ann Coulter.
Let's be frank: like their Founding Fathers, millions of praying Americans care about social issues. In 2008, even Obama and Biden were defending traditional marriage (or pretending to) and running away from their abortion records for a reason. What's more, conservatives came out (no pun intended) in force last November and took back the House, in order to bring a little conservative social justice back to Washington. The sad part: Barron should have seen the writing on the wall.
Perhaps friendship circles reinforce denial, however. In September, 2010, the marriage issue toppled another RINO with deep pockets for a reason. But elites couldn't see why New Hampshire's gay marriage-friendly Bill Binnie finished a distant third in the US Senate GOP Primary. Even his heavy money bags couldn't save him. Or as the erudite Oxford graduate and President of the National Organization for Marriage, Brian S. Brown said, "A Republican who supports gay marriage has taken a career ending position."
Perhaps "gay marriage" is seen as compassionate-y. "Some establishment Republicans in Washington who spend their time talking to each other at cocktail parties have themselves convinced that it's 'cool' and 'popular' to support gay marriage," Brown explained. "But rank and file Republicans have delivered the message loud and clear: don't mess with marriage. There is not a single Republican in the nation who has been elected by advocating a pro-gay marriage position. Yet the electoral landscape is littered with the political corpses of Republicans who attempted to do so. Bill Binnie is just the latest example."
Perhaps some Californian Republicans are too liberal and therefore out of touch with Middle America too. I'm no churchgoing Christian, but believe me when I say Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Christians, and Evangelicals have many allies -- even more than America's five gay marriage-loving transgendered Republican voters.
As well, we see that in the 31 states where same-sex marriage was put to the people, the people threw it out every time (even in California thanks largely to God-fearing blacks). Thus, many African-Americans don't associate middle-class gays with victimhood, but moreover, campaigning journalists bent on creating more fatherless families to fill overcrowded jails, don't need enablers.
Perhaps the ladies on The View (singular) and Barron fail to grasp the importance of biology. Or as Stuart Schneiderman who has practiced psychoanalytic psychotherapy (without being brainwashed) states: "To become real, a marriage requires the possibility of conception. It does not require conception. Failure to conceive has never been grounds for nullification. Older, presumably infertile, couples are allowed to marry because if they had performed the same act in the past they might have conceived a child."
Perhaps this social issue is all about liberty: "Not to be too dramatic, but what happens to us when we are forced to accept that reality is what we say it is? What happens to us when we believe that we can change reality by controlling what people say and how they think? All of a sudden, this does not feel quite so harmless."
Who, in all truth, believes that written and unwritten Orwellian speech codes encourage people to question taxpayer-funded social experiments? Outside a toxic politically-correct culture, I mean.
Perhaps Barron is a sweet man who adopted the left's redefinitions of "mandate," "marriage," "transgendered," and "social issue." Regardless, his actions invite the question: Why can't a conservative American voter who treasures life and pro-traditional marriage issues expect his or her voice to be heard in Washington?
Perhaps too Barron doesn't see how conservatism is good for children. Even when rich same-sex male couples use a woman to breed they're robbing an innocent baby of mother-and-child bonding experiences, not to mention breast milk (or important psychobiological benefits). So is this the kind of union that needs to be (a) blessed and/or (b) ignored?
Perhaps I should also send Barron a copy of Godless, by Coulter. In the end, though, it's hard to see the freedom in all of this.
B.P. Terpstra is an Australian writer and blogger. His works can be found on The Daily Caller (Washington D.C.), NewsReal Blog (Los Angeles), Quadrant (Sydney), and On Line Opinion (Brisbane).