Tuesday, January 13, 2009

The new American buggerocracy

So apparently Rick Warren doesn't belong at the inauguration because gay people don't like him. Gene Robinson and Joseph Lowery do, because gay people like them. Homo locuta, causa finita.

When Warren was tapped to pray at the inauguration, gay people took to the streets, while liberals of all inclinations wrung their hands at the new president's tacit recognition that a Christian traditionalist is a citizen, too. Now it turns out that there's also going to be a gay clergyman there, which still isn't enough for some heterophobes to stomach. It's not enough that they be represented; the important thing is that we must not be. So does anyone care if Gene Robinson's selection is a slap in the face to the rest of us?

Apparently not. The clear implication is that gay people's feelings matter, but traditional straight people's don't.

This was the same thought I had a couple of weeks ago about the Pope's Urbi et Orbi address, which the media seemed to think was all about homosexuality. (Based on a single passing reference in a very long homily.) Diogenes hits it on the head:
The UPI story is headlined more soberly: "Pope's speech draws criticism from gays." That's accurate, at least; gay activists did indeed criticize the Pope. Still it's telling that UPI felt the criticism was noteworthy. When was the last time gay activists did not criticize the Pope? For that matter, why do we need to know what gay activists think about the Pope's year-end discussions with the Roman Curia? What did the Albigensians think of the Pope's speech? Did proponents of the gold standard have any strong opinions? UPI readers will never know.

The pope wasn't speaking to gay people at all. Let's face it: gay activists are either not members of his church at all, or they're nominal members who have expressed a refusal to adhere to the Church's teachings on chastity. In other words, Benedict wasn't talking to them anyway. Why should anybody care what they think about it?

Getting back to Barack Obama, why should gay activists be the ones to decide who should be welcome at the inauguration? At most, gay people represent ten percent of the population. What about the other 90 percent? Is he going to be our president too, or is the White House the sole property of the gay lobby? Are they seriously going to try to blacklist from public life the Evangelicals, the Mormons, the Catholics, and anyone else who doesn't sign their metaphorical loyalty oath? Gay people deserve a place at the table just like anyone else; that doesn't mean they need to own the table altogether.

Yes, we've elected a liberal president. We knew that. But does that entitle a tenth of the population to turn America into a buggerocracy? In other words, are gay Americans now the only Americans? Or do the rest of us count for something, too? It's looking like the demands for "equality" and "inclusion" were only one-way.

No comments: