|
As
National Director of HOPE, first let me apologize for
the concerted effort of the radical fringe -- with their
contrived petition and their rhetorical thuggery -- to
bully you into relinquishing your testimony in support
of the time-honoured tradition of marriage. Although their
Stalinist tactics can be somewhat intimidating, rest assured
that this well-organized, but totally unrepresentative
gang of leftist lemmings is offensive and demeaning to
strong, independent and sensible gays and lesbians. Besides,
it is supposedly at the university level where the skills
of civilized debate are finely tuned so that one may tackle
life's controversies with insight and maturity. Sadly,
however, in the censorious world of gay activists, responsible
scholarship and rational discourse are impossible when
it is policed by storm troopers who have the absolutism
of all fanatics claiming sole access to the truth.
HOPE
was formed in 1997 to give a voice to gays and lesbians
who live with dignity and discretion, who don't wake up
every morning looking for discrimination under the bed
and who don't run to the governments, the courts or the
human rights commissions for a lifetime of therapeutic
preferences. It's mandate is to deconstruct militant gay
activism and to dispel the lies, myths and distortions
propagated by the Pink Triangle Brigade in it's relentless
pursuit of the Rainbow agenda.
Despite
persistent efforts from the lobbyists to convince the
world that 10 per cent of the population is gay or lesbian,
the preponderance of reliable and unbiased statistics
clearly indicate that the reality is 2-4 per cent. Moreover,
within that 2-4 per cent minority, less than 1 per cent
are interested in same-sex marriage or even domestic partnership
legislation. In other words, federal and provincial laws
are being changed and traditional values are being compromised
just to appease a tiny, self-anointed clique who, if rounded
up from coast to coast, wouldn't even fill Maple Leaf
Gardens. And at least half of them are legal radicals,
well practised and enormously successful in their countless
court challenges vs the family based society. Of course,
it's no accident that one half of the Toronto couple who
have been designated to challenge the Marriage Act in
Ontario happens to be senior crown attorney, Michael Leshner,
who has been instrumental in previous cases. So, it's
just the same old crowd going 'round and 'round and 'round.
Not the "gay and lesbian community" as always
reported by a cowed and compliant media.
A
good example of just how microscopic and irrelevant this
pitiful assemblage of so-called leaders is, can be illustrated
by the "Queering the Nation Conference" held
at York University in June 1997. It was billed as the
most important national political rally, ever, for gay
activism, and Svend Robinson was one of the keynote speakers.
So, what was the total attendance at this three day, nation-wide,
homosexual activist confab? One Hundred. What a joke!
One hundred attendees at this highly publicized, compulsory,
summer event. Common- sense Canadians should be ashamed
of themselves for allowing this thimble-full of bedwetting,
thumb sucking, entitlement junkies to upset the standards,
conventions and mores upon which this nation was built.
Similarly,
the January 14, 2001 gay wedding farce at Toronto's MCC,
although lavishly feted by a sensation-hungry media, was
shunned and scoffed at by the gay and lesbian community.
More people show up at our raves. Marriage is simply too
boring for our party, pageant and parade lifestyle. Besides,
it's better to stay in the closet when our public image
is embarrassingly represented by a pair of dowdy diesel
dykes and a couple of pasty, asexual queens who look like
they're still licking their wounds from being squashed
and scorned by all the guys and dolls in the schoolyard.
Talk about reinforcing every prejudice against us!
Most
Canadians believe that gays and lesbians should be able
to pursue any brand of consensual sex as we see fit and
form whatever relation- ship that makes us happy. But
I'm not so insecure or so selfish that I have to demand
state sanctification and thereby redefine marriage for
everyone else. Marriage is not an arbitrary convention
and is not meant to "change with the times".
We're not talking about fashion, music or art. We're talking
about an institution whose 4 prohibitions -- you can only
marry one person at a time, only someone of the opposite
sex, never someone beneath a certain age, and not a close
blood relative -- have been grounded in morality and in
the law for millennia. Humankind yearns for these stabilizing
factors in our kaleidoscopic world and if we abandon these
standards, then everything becomes legal and everything
becomes moral. If gay marriages are permitted (a prerogative
of the most decadent Roman emperors), why not polygamy
-- a pagan and early Hebrew practice later banned by Judeo-
Christianity.
Gay
activist propaganda is particularly fallacious with respect
to the economic advantages and disadvantages of marriage.
Their current cant claims that gays and lesbians are being
denied choice, equality and human rights because we can't
legally marry. In reality, we are economically and socially
privileged compared to our heterosexual counterparts and
experience no more or no less discrimination than any
other segment of society. We are well educated, well travelled
and well paid. We can buy property or invest in the stock
market. Our assets can be transferred or bequeathed to
anyone we choose. A business partnership or property agreement
does not become null and void simply because it is made
by same sex individuals. If someone wishes to find out
information about a partner, or even a friend, who is
in the hospital, they do not need permission from the
immediate family. The patient has the final authority
on this matter and the hospital is obligated to follow
the patients wishes.
As
an openly gay male, I have no problem conceding that heterosexual-ity
is and always will be the great human norm. But I'm sick
and tired of hearing the Marxist mantra that my dignity
and my relationships are devalued because the state will
not codify same-sex marriage. And I'm sick and tired of
a media culture that facilely equates homosexuality with
heterosexuality and asks no deep questions about human
psychology beyond the superficial liberal-vs-conservative,
freedom-vs-oppression dichotomy.
The
state exists to fix the roads and to keep the bandits
out of our hair. The state exists to assist the poor,
the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the disenfranchised.
Happy, successful, cultured and competitive queers do
not have a persecution complex or a nanny-state mentality.
Nor do we need to engage in nihilism and social engineering
so that the caterwauling extremists can fulfil their egalitarian
demands. We've graduated from kindergarten -- emotionally,
spiritually intellectually and psychologically.
One
does not have to be a "bigoted, intolerant, right-wing,
religious fundamentalist" to oppose gay marriage.
It is significant to note that an interfaith coalition
of Roman Catholics, Sikhs, Muslims, Anglicans, and Evangelicals
will be intervening in the upcoming, orchestrated, court
challenges to the Marriage Act. That such a diverse body
of religious organizations, all of whom have numerous
disagreements in matters of doctrine and practice, are
unanimous in their defence of marriage, clearly shows
a universal, pressing concern for this issue. So gays
need to stop bitching about orthodox Christians, Jews
and Muslims who are merely exercising their constitutional
right to free speech about homosexuality and whose vast
philosophical perspective easily triumphs over the provincialism
and amorality of the gay world. Indeed, their position
is far more credible and honest than the tortuous casuistry
of self-interested clerics, like Brent Hawkes, who take
the path of least resistance by creating their own church,
tailor-made to affirm their Rainbow philosophy.
If
Oscar Wilde, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Tchaikovsky,
Somerset Maugham or any other historical gay icon were
resurrected into today's world, they would be aghast at
the whimpering, hysterical malcontents that dominate modern
gay activism. These were cultivated and cosmopolitan individuals
who lived in the world -- not in spite of it, who advanced
the cultural heritage, who didn't embrace victim hood
and who didn't wallow in the partisan destructiveness
of gay vs straight. These are our real heroes and revolutionaries
who left their unique and indelible mark on the pages
of history.
Now
compare those cultural giants with the silly drag queens
who rioted at Stonewall, which became the genesis of today's
cry baby, monomaniacal Gay Liberation. From the exalted
creativity of the Renaissance to the infantile vulgarity
of Gay Pride, we've managed to dumb ourselves down to
the level of barnyard animals. Mostly piggies at the trough.
Not only that, but the gay and lesbian lobby has been
extremely naive in it's belligerent confidence that "homophobia"
will disappear with massive and forced education of the
benighted. The sad truth is that such relentless indoctrination
cannot be achieved without fascist obliteration of all
individual freedoms. And since freedom is a hell of a
lot more important than political correctness or tolerance,
you can rest assured that any perceived threat to freedom
will result in a backlash that will guarantee oppression
to all homosexuals. Gay males, especially, are forever
on the edge of a precipice because in a political cataclysm
we are among the first to be purged.
My
detractors will often try to trip me by proclaiming that
if it weren't for the pioneering activists (ie the Stonewall
drag queens, "Act Up" etc), I wouldn't presently
be writing or speaking my opinions. Well, if it weren't
for the Suffragettes there wouldn't be two female McGill
professors intervening on behalf of traditional marriage.
All movements need boundaries. In North America, matters
of privacy and discrimination were laudably and necessarily
dealt with during the 1970's. Today, it's all about privileges,
benefits, social engineering and redefining normalcy,
as well as mocking, marginalizing and even threatening
those who dare to disapprove. The lobby groups cleverly
and deliberately blur all distinctions between personal
and political issues and if you don't accept all manner
of behaviour, lifestyle and political demands, then you
are summarily accused of denigrating the human being and
vociferously branded as "homophobic".
By
far, the scariest and most insidious corollary to state
sanctioned same-sex marriage is the inevitable legitimization
of same-sex adoption. This is blatant child abuse. Not
necessarily physical abuse, but most certainly psychological
and emotional abuse. Lots of gays, including myself, would
love to have children, but we're not so selfish or trendy.
Children are not pets, toys or material possessions; we
can't treat them like guinea pigs or social experiments.
Children need a male and female role model and the so-called
studies that purport to show that children of same-sex
parents grow up to be equally healthy and stable as those
of opposite-sex parents are spuriously crafted by those
who are predisposed to trashing the traditional family.
And the tiresome argument that many heterosexual marriages
fail, leaving a single parent to raise a family is nickel-and-dime
sophistry. Let's concentrate on fixing the existing problems
without opening a new can of worms.
Professors
Somerville and Young, I trust that this letter has provided
you at least a modicum of enlightenment and assistance
in your noble efforts to pursue truth, justice and civility,
and to preserve the foundations and freedoms which shaped
Canada's cultural landscape. You are far more erudite
and experienced in your respective fields than I could
ever hope to be and, with your superb credentials, I know
that you will present your cases with compassion and wisdom.
Although I have vigorously denounced the misguided efforts
and obstructive strategies of my radical brothers and
sisters, one cannot help but admire their indefatigable
persistence and perseverance. Believe me, if their opponents
had anywhere near the same determination and fervour,
we wouldn't be facing an unbroken string of gay activist
victories in the Supreme Courts. They are the hands down
winners and we are the sorry losers -- by default or otherwise.
Godspeed
in your intervention and should you have further concerns
or questions, please contact me.
Sincerely
for common sense and sanity,
John
Mckellar, National Director, HOPE
|
