The Catholic Thing
Revenge of the Homofascists Print E-mail
By Austin Ruse   
Thursday, 15 July 2010

Any day now, the judge in the Proposition 8 trail is expected to hand down his decision. No one doubts what that decision will be. He tipped his hand abundantly during the whole trial. Without doubt, he will overturn the decision made by millions of Californians that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

A few weeks ago I criticized defense counsel for relying on David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values as the chief witness for the defense. Among other oddities, Blankenhorn affirmed during his testimony that American would be "more American" on the day that homosexual marriage is allowed.  Those close to the trial say Blankenhorn was supposed to play the role of the "liberal academic" who reluctantly, but reasonably and thoughtfully, concluded that marriage must remain between one man and one woman. That might have worked except for the cowardice of others.

Four tenured professors were supposed to provide expert social science data that shows children have the greatest chance of success in life when they are reared in a life-long marriage between man and woman. These four chickened out when it became clear that plaintiff’s counsel and the judge planned a show trial that would put contrary witnesses in danger.

What we saw during the Prop 8 campaign and the subsequent trial are the bullyboy even fascistic tactics of some among the polymorphously perverse (before you write in, I know most American homosexuals would probably deplore such violent tactics – and I look forward to hearing them say so publicly). What is happening on street corners and in courtrooms over the marriage debate is reminiscent of the homosexual takeover of the American Psychiatric Association and the coerced change in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. The manual used to consider homosexuality a neurosis that could be treated. Over a few dramatic years in the 1970s, homosexual activists invaded the annual meeting of the association and verbally abused and physically coerced and threatened association members. Within a few years the diagnostic manual was changed. Homosexuality was now normal.

Opponents of same-sex marriage in California were treated to the same brown-shirt tactics. They got bricks tossed through their car windows, their homes were attacked, and they lost jobs. A frightening YouTube video shows a mob of drunken homosexuals spitting on, taunting, and physically threatening a group of Christians who had the temerity to sing hymns on the wrong block in San Francisco. It is within this context that the Prop 8 trial convened.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese, writing in the New York Times last January, first raised alarms about Judge Vaughn Walker’s bias. Meese pointed out a series of pre-trial motions "that have the effect of putting the sponsors of Proposition 8, and the people who voted for it, on trial." Walker was less interested in legislative history and social science data than he was in "TV advertisements, press releases, and campaign workers’ statements." He also gave plaintiff’s attorneys the right to discover "internal communications about (PR and advertising) messages that were considered for public use but never used." He ordered the defense to turn over all email messages related to campaign strategy. Why? In order to help make the plaintiff’s case that the motivating factor in the Prop 8 campaign was nothing more than animus against homosexuals.

Perhaps the worst thing Walker did was his attempt to get the whole show trial broadcast on television. He wanted the whole world and certainly the thugs of the sexual left to see and hear the troglodytes who oppose same-sex marriage. Given that even small donors to the Prop 8 campaign were identified on websites along with their home addresses and places of employment, it is reasonable to assume that pictures of witnesses would soon pop up on those same sites. Walker’s decision was stayed and rebuked by the U. S. Supreme Court.

It was rumored at the time that Walker is a homosexual. It has subsequently been revealed in the Los Angeles Times that Walker "attends bar functions with a companion physician." Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who has done remarkable work in exposing these shenanigans on the Bench Memos blog at National Review Online, writes "The apparent implication is that Walker has a regular male partner and may be in a long-term relationship." Whelan says if this is so, then Walker had a statutory obligation to recuse himself from the case since he might have a vested interest in overturning Prop 8 (which might prevent him from marrying his male lover).

No matter what Judge Walker decides, this case is going all the way to the Supreme Court. But in the meantime there are other court challenges. Sadly, defenders of marriage have great difficulty finding credentialed social scientists willing to testify. One activist told me, "It doesn’t matter what the social science says if we can’t find a single normally credentialed social scientist to stand by it."

It is hard to blame tenured professors who rightly fear getting death threats or young untenured professors who see their future livelihoods threatened. Still, much depends on a few brave men and women to decide that the thuggish tactics will advance no further.

What we face is the gravest threat to the foundational institution of human society, the family. Never, not once in human history, has there been such a threat as we now face from homosexual activists. Certainly, with easy divorce, contraception, and much else, heterosexuals have already diminished the institution of marriage, but even they have never tried to redefine it out of existence.

Somewhere someone who has the credentials to testify must decide that some things are more important than tenure, more important than advancement, more important than peace and quiet. Now is the time to stand up and say no: not one inch more.

Austin Ruse is the President of the New York and Washinton, D.C.-based Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a research institute that focuses exclusively on international social policy. The opinions expressed here are Mr. Ruse’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of C-FAM.

(c) 2010 The Catholic Thing. All right reserved. For reprint rights write to: info at thecatholicthing dot org

The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (11)Add Comment
written by Patrick, July 16, 2010
I wonder what motivates these homofascists. I suppose I can understand the temptation of a romantic encounter with someone of the same sex. And I can see why they'd want to be free of harassment to practice their perverse form of sexuality.
What I fail to comprehend is their aggressive militancy toward heterosexuality. Do they not know where babies come from? There is a reason why heterosexuality is favored by civilized groups like the Catholic Church and followers of Confucianism. It's a fairly obvious reason that's directly related to and trivially derived from empirically observable biological processes.

So why the rebellion against biology? I think this whole attitude is bound up with Nietzsche's Übermensch, Transhumanism, and the desire to become God. Catholic Natural Law, and similar systems of belief like Confucianism, start with evidence-based facts of nature, and set up moral laws based on that. Militant homosexualists, gender queers, and the like, believe that biology is not a science in the normal sense of the word, but is really just a set of social constructs. Sexuality, for them, is not where babies come from, but rather a social gesture, like saying, "Hello, how are you?"

Having modified sexuality (in their minds, at least), it is a small step to mold the human into something else, as well. We've seen this before in Nazism (making the human into the Aryan ideal), in Communism (making the human into the apparatus of the Party), and in capitalism as well (making the human into the productive machine).

What does the homofascist want to make the human into? It doesn't seem quite clear yet, but it seems to be someone who unthinkingly supports the deconstructionist agenda of the arcane victimologists of the queer studies departments ghettos. In other words, it doesn't really matter to them, just so long as it's not someone who has an idea of absolute morality, or who believes in Hell. Is a belief in mathematics, or empirical biology next in the firing line?

After all, having "deconstructed" the idea of the human being, particularly as a creature of God, that leaves them as the new God. Power, no matter how nonsensical its basis, is always seductive.
Hope for polygamists?
written by Joe, July 16, 2010
I think it was about 130 years ago that the Supreme Court ruled that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution. Now with liberal Elena Kagen coming aboard, chances of a reversal have improved, along with sanctioning same-sex marriage. Afterwards, we can look forward to the "right" to marry our mothers, sisters and pets because, after all, using the rationale of modernism, it's all about "love." And if you love someone, you should be allowed to marry them.
written by Joe, July 16, 2010
Patrick is on to something. Excellent column. There is another shading as well, I believe. It is the narrative that empowers all fascists and it is the narrative that must be preserved on pain of death. If the narrative dies, or even if it is "dissed" fear and anxiety bubble up from the dark places within. Worship of the narrative is crucial. Everyone must clap for Tinkerbelle. It is mandatory. Hey! What are you looking at?
written by Emina Melonic, July 16, 2010
There is a really good book on homosexuality and public policy, which has been I think out of print (surprise, surprise!) or at least it's difficult to find. It is by E. Rueda, titled "Homosexual Network." It goes deeply into the psychological character of homosexuality (esp. male homosexuality) and its manifestations in American public life/policy. The book is written incredibly objectively, presenting facts as clearly as possible. And we all know that we can't run away from facts. In any case, I highly recommend it (if you're lucky to find it).
written by MartinK, July 16, 2010
Good article. Another good book on the subject is "Homesexuality and the Politics of Truth" by Jeffrey Santinover.

Curious how this movement will play out when, sometime in the future, it has to confront Islam instead of Christianity. It brings to mind Newman's words quoted on this site a few months ago.. “Providence rescues and saves His elect inheritance. Sometimes our enemy is turned into a friend; sometimes he is despoiled of his special virulence of evil which was so threatening; sometimes he falls to pieces of himself; sometimes he does just as much as is beneficial, and then is removed.”
The [Great]est Generation?
written by Jacob, July 16, 2010
And we know that won't happen.

Exhibit A: These comments.

People are still more concerned with trying to impress you "look Catholic Thing people I'M REAL SMART LIKE YOU!" but quite bored by the idea of standing up like Jesus Christ against the Jews and Romans.

American adults would elect Satan himself so long as he delivered unfettered access to sex, drugs, food, money/power or whatever else.
They will watch their own children mutilated if you only promise them that they can live in a gated community and golf.
Marx before Nietzsche
written by Thomas C. Coleman, Jr., July 16, 2010
Although I would not take issue with Patrick's remarks concerning the disastorous effects of Nietzsche's ideas on the world, I think that several of Marx's notions are continuing to promote the madness that now prevails. It was Marx who proclimed that the family is the root of all evil and called for the abolition of marriage, which is what those behind the homosexual agenda are really striving for. The poor homosexuals should take note of how their confrers in Communist countries are treated, and then perhaps they will realize that they are being used. Marxism remains the dominant force in Western academia, even in many nominally Catholic institutions. Marxists are also equating so-called homophobia to racism as a means of discrediting Christainity, which Marxists really want to destroy because the Catholic Chruch stands between humanity and the Marxists' totlitarian dreams. At the same time that they attack the Church from the outside, they attack from within, resulting in the phenomenon of millions of Catholics, to include regular communicants, CCD teachers, Eucharistic ministers, and memebers of the Legion of Mary agreeing with Rembert Weakland and sincerely believing that their beliefs soundly Catholic. One seldom hears a Christian academic or clergyman say that Nietxsche was right about some things--mostly because his name his associated with Nazism--but we often hear praise for Marx. Priests who have never even heard of, let alone read, Divini Redemptoris tell me, "The Catholic Church no longer caategorically condemns Communism." Impossible, of course. So what do we do? Pray! Have the courage to tell misinformed Catholics the truth--that they MAY NOT support so-called homosexual marriage or abortion and that Holy Mother CANNOT change her Teachings on such matters.
Deitrich von Hildebrand
written by Marcus, July 16, 2010
What we need are more men like the late great Deitrich von Hildebrand. Men who live their lives as a testament to what they believe. Even in the face of Nazism, von Hildebrand refused to deny his faith or refuse it's importance in his life. His is an incredible story. Where have men like that gone?
Unhappy Ending
written by Billy Bean, July 18, 2010
"Never, not once in human history, has there been such a threat as we now face from homosexual activists." I am not sure I precisely understand the intended force of that statement, but those of us who accept the historicity of Genesis 18:16-19:25 might find there a precedent. Homosexual militancy is nothing new, and its ascendancy is always the death knell for the culture that nurtures it.
Bad Legal Reasoning
written by C. D. Constant, July 19, 2010
The truly sad thing is that the social scientist's opinions should have nothing to do with the legality of a prohibition on homosexual marriage. Either society has the ability to define marriage or it does not. If it does not, then bigamy, polygamy, and marriage in consanguinity should be legal as well. In essence, there is no such thing as "marriage." Read Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (the Texas sodomy case) and he is dead on. It doesn't matter if some homosexuals will be "happy" when they are "married" and raise healthy, happy kids. The same thing could happen in a marriage between 2 men and 3 women. The question is whether society has the right to define and defend the most essential functional unit that has been around for 6,000 years.

Make no mistake about it, parenthood is next. Look for the argument that, just because you are the biological parent of a child does not give you superior rights over society in determine who should raise the child. The assigned parenthood amendment is on the way . . .
Johann Harare's admission...
written by Graham Combs, July 19, 2010
Several years ago, British gay activist, Johann Harare wrote an online essay discussing what he called the "fascistic tendencies" among gays. He noted in passing the notorious reputation of Hitler's SS (murderously purged because there were so many homosexual men in the units -- themselves ultimate victims of fascism ). I attend mass (and was confirmed) at a well known and orthodox Catholic parish here in southeastern Michigan. Monsignor hosted a conference a few months ago for Catholic parents and their gay offspring. The Church reaches out but cannot change its doctrine on the SACRAMENT of Marriage. The Archdiocese of New York under Cardinal O'Connor spent considerable Church hospital funds treating men sick and dying with AIDS in the 1980s and 1990s when I lived in New York. His eminence visited these wards several times a month. I've had my own experiences at the hands of people who will brook no challenge to their political activism -- an activism that has been carried from the colleges and streets right into the workplace. Fear, conformity, intimidation -- for once the accusation of a "new McCarthyism" would be appropriate. I fear what the endgame will be... If the intention is to make us feel weak and helpless, it is working...

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


Other Articles By This Author