New Hampshire narrowly avoids the abyss
(Correction: the news is not good. See James N.’s comment below.)
Here is the first good news on the homosexual “marriage” front since California passed Prop. 8 last November. New Hampshire’s House of Representatives, which had been expected to pass a bill institutionalizing same-sex “marriage,” defeated it by two votes. The bill had already passed the state Senate, and the governor had pledged to sign it into law if the House had approved it.
But, as I said, it’s been mostly bad news, disastrous news, in recent months. Just this week, Washington State made same-sex “partnerships” the full legal equivalent of marriage:
Gregoire expands same-sex partnerships
Surrounded by about 300 people—most of them gay and lesbians couples and their children—Gov. Chris Gregoire on Monday signed legislation giving registered same-sex domestic partners all the rights and benefits that Washington now offers married couples.
Gintas writes:
Oh, look at all the cute children! It’s for the children! You get to grow up in Liberal Hell, and learn to hate Christians.
James N. writes:
The news, unfortunately, is not good at all.
Both houses of the NH Legislature voted for homosexual “marriages” by narrow margins. Governor Lynch said he would veto the bill unless the Legislature modified the law they passed to provide protection for Christians and for religious organizations, essentially to bar lawsuits over failure to perform or recognize these pretended marriages.
The state Senate passed the governor’s requested language 14-10. Hatred of Christians is running so high in the lower House that they refused to pass the governor’s religious protection amendment, thus killing the bill unless the governor reconsiders his veto promise.
So, homosexual “marriages” were prevented in NH because the Legislature not only intends to recognize them, but to force Christian organizations to do so as well. If they can’t have homosexual “marriage” with compulsion, they don’t want it at all.
May 22
Pentheus writes:
Re James N.’s comment (“If they can’t have homosexual marriage with compulsion, they don’t want it at all.”)—The compulsion—not the restrictions and difficulties of real marriage—is the goal of the “same-sex marriage” activism. They only seek to obtain a weapon (governmental power) with which to smash all people who disagree with or disapprove of them in any way. The number of “gays” who actually get “married” is a tiny percentage of an already tiny percentage subgroup in the general population, but the indignant demand for it is almost universal amongst them.
It is a major error for people to see the “same-sex marriage” movement as an outgrowth of the sexual revolution. It is in fact a product of feminism and feminization (i.e., the anti-sexual revolution). It is anti-male in any number of ways. Note that “gays” are either women (lesbians) or men who are actually or regarded as being like females. So, “same-sex marriage” is a relationship without any man necessary. It follows the same logic as single motherhood.
It shows, as well as anything else, that America is now a female-dominated society. The female outlook is made the law of the land. It is based on the demonstrably false premise that there is an equal desire by men and women to get married, and an equal valuation of marriage as a major life priority. Why are there dozens or more magazines and TV shows for brides, but none for grooms? Because for the most part men today don’t care about marriage, indeed desire to avoid it. Women hate hearing this, and demand that men say otherwise.
The sight of men (so-called “gays”) screaming indignantly about not being able to get married should serve as a clear giveaway. Since when are men so eager to get married? Generally, women have to guilt and push and cajole men into it. If a law were passed forbidding men from marrying women, there would be substantial numbers of men cheering it, and none who would engage in the kinds of petulant hissy fits that followed upon the passage of Prop. 8 in California. Rather, it would be, “Gee, sorry honey; I’d love to be able to marry you as you have been bugging and pressuring me to do, but, now I can’t. Darn. Hey, I’m just as dissapointed as you are, honestly. Don’t blame me; blame the legislature.”
The general public is really asleep in failing to oppose this revolutionary re-definition of what no one ever questioned until about 20 years ago. They have bought the anodyne argument that “gays” just want to commit themselves to each other, and be left alone, and that will be the end of the matter.
But legal recognition of “same-sex marriage” is not by any means the end of this story. It is only the beginning, like the storming of the Bastille. Next comes The Terror. And given the present legal, political and social trends, I cannot foresee any Thermidor or Napoleon arising in the future to turn things back to normal.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 20, 2009 04:57 PM | Send