Painting of bride deemed offensive

Somehow it escaped my memory, but it seems that Britain has legalized homosexual civil unions, and here is one of the consequences. As reported at WorldNetDaily:

Couples looking to tie the knot in Liverpool, England, no longer have an image of a traditional marriage overseeing their wedding, as the painting has been deemed potentially offensive to homosexual couples.

Indeed, a beautiful and impressive painting of a bride dressed in white leaning forward and signing her marriage register (reproduced in the WND article) has been removed from the marriage registrar’s office. But now see this typically inadequate and clueless conservative response:

Dr. Adrian Rogers, ex-director of the Conservative Family Institution, told the Sun newspaper: “This is ludicrous and the worst example of political correctness. This is an insult to every heterosexual couple that have been married at Liverpool register office.”

Note that Dr. Rogers, leader of a traditional family values-type organization, is not protesting the fact of homosexual civil unions (which is not to say that he doesn’t oppose it, only that he does not mention it here). Rather, he is protesting the removal of the traditional painting, which he terms “ludicrous and the worst example of political correctness.” It doesn’t seem occur to him that the removal of the painting is the inevitable and logical result of legalizing homosexual relationships. As I and other critics have frequently pointed out, once homosexual relationships are legally recognized, whether as “marriage” or quasi “marriage,” then, in the interest of erasing any privilege attendant on normal marriage, every incident of normal marriage, from the obligations of child care, to the words “husband and wife,” “bride and groom,” and “he and she,” to the very notion of the meaning of marriage, will have to be altered or expunged.

How can conservatives ever understand the left, if they think that everything it does is irrational and “silly,” rather than the unfolding of its own inherent logic, namely the logic of equality? If they ignore the logos (the intelligible structure) and the telos (the purpose or end) of the left, how can they effectively resist it? However, that’s not the relevant question. The relevant question is, why do conservatives ignore the logos and telos of the left? It is because, as I’ve said many times, if they identified the logos and telos of the left, they would actually have to oppose the left as the left, instead of whining about the “ludicrous” excesses of political correctness!

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 14, 2005 12:39 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):