Here are the highlights.
The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.End of democracy? I think of myself as an interpreter of Mormonism, but even I'm struggling to find a context in which this comment makes sense. It's not enough to point out that Mormons are millennial dispensationalists who expand personal and local conflicts into end-of-the-world issues. You have to imagine that homosexuality is not just a lifestyle choice that you may disagree with, but some kind of magical force of darkness that is politically dangerous.
How dangerous is this, politically? Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a "homophobe" for years.Wonder why. You know who Card reminds me of? My missionary companion from Idaho. He once made some disparaging comments about gay people, and I said, "You know what you are? You're a homophobe."
"What's that?" he said.
"Well, 'phobe' is like 'phobia' — fear. So it's a fear of gay people."
He was incensed. "I'm not afraid of them! I'll bet the hell out of any of them!"
Just for reference, here are his 'mildest of comments' from 1990:
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.Keep 'em in line. Send 'em a message. Good move. Back to the article.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
A term that has mental-health implications (homophobe) is now routinely applied to anyone who deviates from the politically correct line. How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as "mentally ill"?Well, it would help if you stopped, you know, writing insane things. I'm not an expert, but Card sounds psychiatrically actionable.
If property rights were utterly abolished, and you could own nothing, you would leave that society as quickly as possible -- or create a new society that agreed to respect each other's property rights and protected them from outsiders who would attempt to take away your property.I got a better one: There are laws against littering. But music is much more important than litter, so we should have laws about what kind of music you're allowed to listen to.
Marriage is, if anything, more vital, more central, than property.
He then argues that marriage is like some kind of slum that straight people have let run down, which is why those horrible gay people now want in.
A vast number of unmarried men and women have such contempt for marriage that they share bed and home without asking for any formal recognition by society.How dare they!
What is this 'society' Card's talking about, and how is he so sure what it expects of us? And why does he think that society must approve of all our actions? Is he a utopian socialist?
One thing is certain: Card's devotion to society is absolute, until the very moment it contradicts his views.
Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?What a terrible monologue. But at least he has his priorities straight. Better to tear down the fabric of the republic than for people to think certain things.
Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?
If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?
How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
It's crazy stuff, and it all comes to you courtesy of the Mormon Times, the weekly magazine of the church-owned Deseret Times. I'd love to see if the church leadership has anything to say about this call to insurrection.