Late last year, rock star Hillary Clinton disappointed politically-correct Australians on tour, when she opposed redefining marriage. They didn’t know what to do. If a conservative said the same, they’d boo ferociously.
The funny thing: Even here (I kid you not) pro-gay marriage columnists, like Susie O'Brien, are piggybacking on the African-American Civil Rights Movement.
Nor should one underestimate their selective compassion. Of the liberal-sounding Catholic and headline-hungry Father Bob Maguire, the Herald Sun’s Susie O'Brien declared, “I respect his views but would like to see an open minded man like him fight the might of the Catholic Church. Why not perform gay ceremonies in churches? Who is it going to hurt? Surely gay people deserve to enjoy the pomp and ceremony of a church ‘wedding’ even if they can’t be legally married.”
The surprise: It appears as though (a) O'Brien has never met an anti-gay marriage homosexual in her life and (b) that she believes that all gays with church fantasies are camper than Elton John’s wigs, period.
The hysterical columnist proclaimed too that, “Holding gay ceremonies in churches would bring gay marriage one step further. Eventually gay marriage will be just as natural to us in this country as Vegemite sandwiches.” For through the “church” gays can find eternal happiness!
Stereotypes aside, though, why target devout Christians? A fair-and-balanced gay marriage activist would state that holding “gay ceremonies” in mosques wouldn’t hurt anyone either. After all, O'Brien’s walking clichés love pomp and ceremony, right? Or maybe she never was tolerant.
It’s also telling how separation-of-church-and-state cheerleaders are taking anti-evangelical positions, while trying to inject their spiritual-sounding secularism and environmentalism into churches.
And never underestimate the activist’s penchant for race cards. Or to paraphrase Dr. Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution: Middleclass leftwing gays with wedding dreams aren’t blacks, so please stop patronizing us.
Mind you, bigoted-sounding elites need victims. Before writing her Catholicophobic column, “Gay weddings should be legal and performed in all churches” (as opposed to mosques), Susie O'Brien also likened middleclass white gay marriage goals to black civil rights in her equally painful column, “Time for gay marriage to get the nod in Australia.”
In another attempt at historical relevance, O'Brien posited: “Arguing that civil unions are equal to marriage is like arguing that legendary US civil rights campaigner Rosa Parks was getting the same ride as the white people, even though she was made to give up her seat to whites.” And: “It’s like saying blacks are being treated fairly because they still can get a drink at their blacks-only water fountain. It’s fiction.”
Problem 1,245: African-Americans, who helped to defeat gay marriage in California, are bigots according to O'Brien’s logic.
Furthermore, no case for gay marriage is complete without fake polls to push the imaginary consensus along. After nearly patronizing politically-incorrect gays and blacks to death, O'Brien has also presented activist-inspired polls to the public as scientific works, maintaining that “politicians may be surprised by the outcome: according to a Galaxy Poll released last month, a growing majority of Australians – 62 per cent – believe that same-sex couples should have the right to marry.”
Granted, they may also be surprised to learn that the poll was funded by two activist groups, and that 1050 respondents were asked, “A number of countries allow same-sex couples to marry. These include Argentina, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa and Spain, as well as parts of the United States and Mexico. Do you agree or disagree that same-sex couples in Australia should be able to marry?”
Of course, I’d love the Australian Christian Lobby to ask 1050 respondents the following: “Only a few countries have embraced gay marriage because of anti-democracy activist judges. Do you agree or disagree that same-sex couples in Australia should be able to ‘marry’?”
But my question would be considered unethical.
And speaking of which, is it just me or are certain polls/surveys buried and/or downplayed when they contradict gay marriage activists? For instance, the Herald Sun recently claimed that more people support gay marriage than in the 1990s, while slipping in this little sentence, “But the Australia Scan survey of 2000 people revealed that almost half thought the concept was unacceptable and 18 per cent were unsure.”
The headline? “More people OK with gay marriage”! Not: “Less support for gay marriage than Galaxy claims.” Untested activist quotes and a happy snap of "married" Elton John and his partner were also utilised, for propaganda purposes.
In the end, O'Brien isn’t just mothering gay marriage activists, she’s also trying to intimidate critical-thinking Australians (homosexuals and straights alike) when she uses labels and trigger words/terms like “bigoted, homophobic opponents of gay marriage” and “small-minded individuals.” Even Hillary Clinton fails her PC test.
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).
Start a conversation using these share links: