Tags: proposition | 8

Activists Protest Marriage Ruling

Monday, 17 Nov 2008 09:57 AM

By Pat Boone

  Comment  |
   Contact  |
  Print   |
    A   A  
  Copy Shortlink

According to the news reporting, an elderly lady in Palm Springs, Calif., was simply trying to make her way past demonstrators, not aggravating or arguing with them. But the sight of the cross she was carrying made her a target for their anger.

Instantly, the homosexual agitators saw her as a symbol of their enemy, perhaps even a Catholic or Mormon. So they jostled and ridiculed her, barring her way and nearly knocking her to the pavement. I watched as she was forced off the sidewalk into the street, and the cross was knocked out of her hands.

All this in response to the results of the California election, in which a majority of voters ratified a state constitutional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

The news report didn’t say how she was rescued, or what her emotional condition was after the incident, but I was furious at the demonstrators, as any decent person would be. What kind of people would take out their fury at being denied special privileges on a defenseless older woman who probably had absolutely nothing to do with their issue?

I’ll tell you what kind of people — furious homosexual activists. Almost immediately after Proposition 8 won decisively in our California election, as its functional equivalent Proposition 22 had previously, the street demonstrations began.

How dare the voters defy the wishes of this sexually defined group? How dare the people of California require that marriage continue to be defined in such narrow terms, just one man, one woman? We’ll show ’em . . . we’ll take to the streets!

And that’s what they did, in jarring numbers. They’d learned that Catholic and Mormon church members and others across the state had donated personally to an organized campaign to defend the humanly essential institution of marriage. And the activists were livid.

Over 70 million dollars was spent on the campaign, 30 of it from supporters, and 40 or more from opponents of the measure and its implications to homosexual aims. That in itself was appalling; 70 million dollars spent attacking and defending the most elemental unit of society, the institution of marriage.

How could this be happening, especially in America, intended and long defined as a Christian nation?

One of the most telling pro-Prop 8 TV spots began with the insolent, in-your-face proclamation of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, on the courthouse steps just after a little black-robed coterie on the State Supreme Court had declared the California law against same-sex marriage, enacted in 2000 as Proposition 22, unconstitutional.

“Well, it’s happening now,” brayed Newsome, “whether you like it or not!” He was directing his derision at the voters of California, who had declared their support for traditional marriage already, and now were seeing their wishes repudiated by four small-minded, prejudiced appointees.

They had just ruled that no matter what the voters said, California would allow two men or two women to “marry,” tossing thousands of years of precedent and religious and moral thought into the garbage.

Newsome, who had personally officiated at “marriage” ceremonies in San Francisco, when it was officially illegal, was defiantly saying that neither he nor his constituents would be bound by existing law or the democratically expressed will of the people.

And now, that very attitude, multiplied a thousand times, is compelling hordes of demonstrators to picket in front of Mormon temples and churches, to march angrily through the streets of Los Angeles, to disrupt quiet neighborhoods that contain Catholic churches — and to vent at black churches and Christians, who voted 70 percent or more for Prop 8.

What ever happened to the democratic process? To the will of the people, expressed at the polls? To the rule of law, to say nothing of normal decency?

Has it not occurred to the activists that arrogant ranting and civil disturbances turn people against them and their goals? That acting out this way reveals the kind of social order they want to force on America?

Ed and Al are two sixtysomething guys who share an apartment in a modest part of town. Ed can’t work because of a disability, and Al quit his job after his wife died.

They’re longtime friends, and they decided two could still live cheaper than one — so they moved in together and pooled their pensions and retirement funds. They’re just good pals, and they enjoy all their individual rights and freedoms.

Kyle and Brian are two fortysomething guys who share a much nicer apartment in a better part of town. Kyle is a tenured professor and Brian manages a jewelry shop. They live “the good life,” pooling their salaries and job benefits. They also have their individual rights and privileges, like all other citizens. There’s only one difference between the two pairs: Kyle and Brian pleasure each other sexually.

Because of this one difference, Kyle and Brian believe they occupy a special place in society, equate themselves with blacks and other racial minorities, and demand “rights” that previously have been granted only to properly married couples, pairings that create children and families, and perpetuate civilization.

Kyle and Brian desire the legitimacy of marriage, the total approval of the public, and all the tax advantages and privileges of the married. No matter that this arrangement, as it spreads across the nation, will place an even greater tax burden on the majority of Americans who reject the homosexual practices that define Kyle and Brian’s relationship.

Kyle and Brian want their “rights,” and they intend to have them. If they can’t get what they want through the democratic process, like other citizens do, they’ll intimidate Christians, create civil disturbance and pervert the legal process till they prevail.

We the people have a fight on our hands — and these crazed activists are forcing it on us. This is not a “civil rights” issue. It’s an issue of rebellion, intimidation, and, painful to say . . . anarchy. It’s getting close to classic gangland extortion: “Do it our way, or we’ll ruin you.”

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

  Comment  |
   Contact  |
  Print   |
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Set Clear Standards for Immigration Amnesty

Friday, 05 Dec 2014 14:30 PM

Nobody would be deported except those who won’t do what this country has always required, to live peacefully and obey ou . . .

A Sensible Immigration Plan - Without Amnesty

Sunday, 23 Nov 2014 08:20 AM

The 12 to 14 million undocumented immigrants, largely from Mexico, are pursuing some part of the American dream. I propo . . .

Obamacare Trampling Constitution

Sunday, 09 Mar 2014 12:52 PM

Why isn’t anybody defending the right of any business or property owner to serve anybody he wants to or decline to produ . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved