Written by Laurie Higgins
In case you didn’t hear the “BIG NEWS,” U.S. Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois), serial prevaricator, has finally come out of the closet on marriage. He has announced his support for the elimination of sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage. I’m shocked.
In a maudlin and self-referential statement Kirk explained, “When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others….Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back — government has no place in the middle.”
When polygamists and polyamorists come knocking on marriage’s door, we should all remember Kirk’s wise words that “government has no place” getting between people who love each other. And we certainly wouldn’t want to disrespect them.
Mark Kirk’s public shift in position, like Barack Obama’s, does not constitute positive change.
Nor did they even change. For years they have simply lied to move up the political ranks, exploiting the naïve and gullible among us, and in Kirk’s case, feeding at the Republican trough.
Any Republican who condescendingly proclaims that the “social issues” are irrelevant or insignificant or so unimportant as to be unworthy of his time or her attention deserves a slap upside the head and a boot out the door.
If “social issues” (a euphemism for political cowards who can’t bring themselves to say “same-sex ‘marriage,’”) are so trivial, so unimportant, so unworthy of public discourse—particularly as compared to the almighty fiscal issues—then why are “progressives” feverishly and unceasingly promoting policies, laws, and lawsuits related to homosexuality?
And what would a truce on the social issues even look like? Since sexuality regressives on both the Left and Right pertinaciously push policies and laws that embody subversive views of homosexuality and gender-confusion, what are immoderate Republicans and Libertarians suggesting the GOP do? What would their dismissive call for a truce actually look like?
Are they suggesting Republicans not vote on issues like same-sex “marriage,” comprehensive sex ed, the repeal of DOMA, repeal of DADT, ENDA, “hate crimes” legislation,” compulsory placement of children with homosexuals, compulsory inclusion of homosexuals as Boy Scout leaders, compulsory inclusion of positive portrayals of homosexuals and “transgenders” in school curricula, and “transgender” policies in schools and elsewhere?
Are they suggesting they vote but not discuss publicly the reasons for their votes?
Are they suggesting Republicans remain ignorant on the substantive reasons to stand firmly for truth, children, marriage, and family but vote anyway?
Please, Republican Pooh-Bahs, do tell us what you really want conservatives to do because it sounds like you’re telling us where to go—permanently.
Meanwhile, into the silence that immoderate Republicans—including our spine-free, conviction-free, deep-pocketed Republicans—have created through ad hominem attacks on conservatives, comes the increasingly vociferous support for all things homosexual.
Kirk and U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and Illinois Republican Chairman Pat Brady can hide behind the utterly false rhetoric of equality and compassion and thus conceal from America and perhaps themselves their complicity in the destruction of this once great nation.
And what will this mean for America? Diminished religious liberty, diminished speech rights, diminished parental rights, increasing numbers of children denied their inherent right to know and be raised by their biological mother and father, and the ultimate destruction of marriage.
By the way, Senator Kirk, whatever happened to the truce?