Consider the “marriage equality” slogan of left-wing advocates of marriage between homosexuals. To us it has always been weak and off-point. All marriages are of course equally marriages, including common-law ones. Same-sex unions or domestic partnerships are not marriages. So in what sense can marriages and non-marriages be equal?
The outing of Rachel Dolezal, the President of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP, as white by her parents sheds light into this dark corner of the liberal mind. Although her parents showed photos of their blonde, blue-eyed girl, according to an AP AP story, she dodged the question of her actual race by stating that “We’re all from the African continent” and “There’s a lot of complexities …and I don’t know that everyone would understand that.” It appears to us that the “complexities” lie exclusively in Miss Dolezal’s mind. Just as Bill Clinton was acclaimed by some as the first black President, for some racial identity need not be factual or biological. If you identify with a group, and “disguise” yourself as Rachel’s mother said about her, your subjective belief becomes reality.
It is a common criticism of liberals that their policy positions reveal more about their subjective states than about reality. Just so with marriage between or among homosexuals. If, as some believe, couples marry themselves, for liberals their couplings become real marriages, which it is incumbent on the non-discriminatory state and Federal governments to recognize. Only in this sense could the slogan of “marriage equality” make sense.
An Associated Press story of November 17 widely picked up by many newspapers and television stations has this headline:
Shelter in Kansas City won’t house gay couples
This gives the impression of bias and bigotry, not to speak of cruelty in the face of the potentially life threatening cold temperatures now in the Kansas City area.
Let’s gain some perspective and ask about the policy for unmarried couples of any kind. At this and many other Christian shelters nationwide a man and a woman who are not married are not permitted to stay in the same room. To permit this would be to contravene the Christian values that created the shelter in the first place. The couple will not be turned out to the streets, but will just have to stay in separate rooms. That this same policy would also be applied to two homosexual men or women is of course hardly unusual or newsworthy.
The AP story continues by noting that the shelter, receiving no government funding, “is not bound by anti-discrimination rules.” The only reason to bring up this gratuitous comment is to imply that the shelter is in fact if not legally guilty of ‘discrimination.’ And this is what makes the story newsworthy for the AP. Continue reading
Let’s create a new aphorism: Who controls the terminology controls the debate.
A little background: the banishment of the formerly polite, neutral term, ‘negro.’ Those controlling the debate pushed the substitution of a new standard term, ‘black.’ Then followed the now universal ‘African-American’ or, on the coasts, ‘person of color.’ To refuse to be subject to this manipulation risks one’s being labelled ‘insensitive,’ which in this context means racist. And for conservatives, racism is the one accusation that cannot easily be shed. The group victimized by discrimination is putatively given the right to control terminology, though in fact control is actually wielded by the progressive forces behind the claims of discrimination. Continue reading