A couple of thoughts about Obama's "Hey, You're Gay, Hurray!" Day

Yesterday, President Obama hosted a "LGBT Pride Month Reception" at the White House. For those who don't know, June 2009 was named "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month" by the President, whose proclamation prominently identified the 1969 Stonewall riots as a key moment of "resistance" out of which "the LGBT rights movement in America was born." During yesterday's love fest, the President was, of course, a bridgemaker, a reconciler, and group hug organizer—unless, that is, you don't happen to support, celebrate, and otherwise bow before the Shrine of LGBT Pride. Here are some noteworthy quotes:

Now this struggle, I don't need to tell you, is incredibly difficult, although I think it's important to consider the extraordinary progress that we have made.  There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop.  And though we've made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted.  And I know this is painful and I know it can be heartbreaking. ...

So this story, this struggle, continues today -- for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and will not -- put aside issues of basic equality.  (Applause.)  We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love. 

     And I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that.  It's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago. 

     But I say this:  We have made progress and we will make more.  And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps.  And by the time you receive -- (applause.)  We've been in office six months now.  I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.  (Applause.)   ...

I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination -- (applause) -- to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country.  Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides.  And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law.  I've made that clear.      I'm also urging Congress to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, which will guarantee the full range of benefits, including health care, to LGBT couples and their children.  (Applause.)  My administration is also working hard to pass an employee non-discrimination bill and hate crimes bill, and we're making progress on both fronts. ...

Now, even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open.  For if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not yet.  (Emphasis added.)

Ah, you have to love the great display of the knowing, mildly menacing diversity: "not yet." Anyone who thinks for a moment this is simply about treating homosexuals with the dignity and respect owed to every man by virtue of being created in the image of God isn't paying attention. The "embrace" is not for those who disagree about the moral character of homosexual acts and the charade of transgendered manipulations, but for those, like President Obama, who celebrate homosexuality as a worthy equal to heterosexuality (or is it better than heterosexuality??), who insist the only criteria for marriage is "love" (which, for male homosexuals, changes focus often). No, those who believe homosexual acts and lifestyles are immoral are "who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes".

Still! Hrrrmph! After so much propaganda, mythology, falsehoods, spin, social pressure, educational programs, television shows, movies, and, now, presidential public relation campaigns, there are still some of us who believe that "homosexual acts [are] acts of grave depravity", they "are intrinsically disordered", they "are contrary to the natural law", they "close the sexual act to the gift of life", and they "do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity." I, for once, still believe, in the words of the Catechism, that "under no circumstances can they be approved." And I also believe, just as strongly, that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (CCC, pars. 2357-9).

But, again, Obama's "Hey, You're Gay, Hurray!" Day is not about basic rights, but about the complete acceptance and support of the beliefs of those who, not satisfied with being left alone, want affirmation for their actions and validation of their lifestyle, however contrary to commonsense, natural law, and basic decency it might be. So, speaking of the Stonewall riots, Obama stated: "It was at this defining moment that these folks who had been marginalized rose up to challenge not just how the world saw them, but also how they saw themselves."

That is a very revealing remark, and quite true in its essence. In a June 27, 2009, piece in The Times commemorating the Stonewall riots, "The Stonewall riots: what have we learnt 40 years on?", Matthew Parris, who is homosexual, writes:

But despite all the groundwork by committee-wallahs and redoubtable individuals, still there was something different and new about the Stonewall upheaval in America. It was revolutionary. It sprang not from argument but from attitude. Pleading had turned into demand. A human group was finding its voice.

Ah yes—it "sprang not from argument but from attitude. Pleading had turned into demand." This speaks volumes about what has transpired over the past forty years, not just regarding this topic, but regarding a multitude of other related issues: abortion, fornication, divorce, contraception, co-habitation, and more. Here, then, are the three legs to the stool of infantile, destructive behavior: defining reality based on my subjective perceptions ("but also how they saw themselves"), relying on emotions and feelings over tradition and reason ("not from argument but from attitude"), and resorting to raw power (usually political) rather than to respectful argument ("Pleading had turned into demand").

Those holding to allegedly worn arguments and old attitudes, are not, you see, to make judgments and evaluations based on tradition, natural law, logic, and religious beliefs, but on what the "gay community" tells them. President Obama, in his speech, stated, "As I said before -- I'll say it again -- I believe 'don't ask, don't tell' doesn't contribute to our national security." But his whole speech was simply a way of saying to those who hold to reason, tradition (both cultural and religious), and religious principles when it comes to homosexuality: "Don't question. Don't talk." This attitude was addressed directly in 1986 by a certain Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger when, as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, he issued the "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," which stated:

Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

Or, as Prof. Joyce Little wrote in her exceptional book, The Church and the Culture War: Secular Anarchy or Sacred Order (Ignatius Press,1995; the book is, unfortunately, out of print), in explaining the essential differences between the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, and the "gay rights" movement: "People intent on exercising total autonomy cannot afford to acknowledge serious ontological and moral differentiations among human beings, because they understand freedom not, as the Church always has, as the power to be and to do the good, but as the ability to do what they want to do do. And they can act this out only if all choices are equal and interchangeable. ... This trivialization of all choices rests upon a trivialization of all differences found among people." This, she goes on to say, results in a subjective and relativistic view of reality and the moral order, the same perspective at the heart of so many other grave ills and evils of our time.

Two quick asides, both related to the comments above:

• The school system in Eugene, Oregon, where I live, recently provided an example of how the enlightened pseudo-pedagogues of the public propaganda system are doing their part to battle the forces of worn arguments and old attitudes. As I posted back in May:

Children between the ages of 4 and 10 are being "educated" about "diversity" and "tolerance" in the form of an exhibit that includes a photo and description of a "trans-gendered" person. Some parents are confused and upset, and wonder why their first-grader isn't being taught how to spell and why their third-grader still cannot read but knows being "queer" is a beautiful and natural thing. School officials insist it has nothing to do with sex, but is about "respect," and lecture the confused parents through media interviews about the need for children to learn "acceptance." The thinly veiled suggestion is that if parents don't go along with said approach, they are likely homophobic and intolerant.

Shortly thereafter a newspaper article about the controversy reported on the reactions of a number of principals involved, including the principal: "Principal BJ Blake has shelved plans to put up a controversial photo display at her two elementary schools, but said Friday she’s more dedicated than ever to finding ways to acknowledge and welcome a diverse community at her northeast Eugene campus." Ms. Blake was quoted as saying:

“I think that the parent controversy took away from what we were trying to do for the children,” said Blake, calling the decision to cancel the display her toughest in 20 years as an educator.

But she and her staff, with the help of a school-level equity committee, will look for other ways to accomplish the same goals, she pledged.

“If this array was not the right tool for an elementary school, then what is the right tool?” she said. “How do we make sure every single person in our school community and the broader community is represented in our school hallways, so we know this is an inclusive community?”

Ms. Blake talks of "tools", it seems clear, because her most important task at hand is readily obvious to her: to tell children between the ages of 4 and 10 that being "transgendered" and "queer" is just as normal and wholesome as a being a boring little straight boy or girl. Likewise, it's clear who is causing her the most problems in this enlightened endeavor: those parents who still hold to worn arguments and old attitudes about what it means to be a boy or girl. I suppose those parents are operating under the old-fashioned notion that schools are meant to teach kids to read and write, not dream of having a sex change or spend time wondering if good buddy "Sammy" used to be "Sally" or wants to be "Sherri." When I was in public school 25 years ago, I was taught in various ways that sex outside of marriage was normal and not to be judged. Look how far we've come!

• Finally, I had originally planned on titling this post, "But, hey, he'll always be against poverty!" That's because shortly after reading about the "Hey, You're Gay, Hurrah!" Day, I received an e-mail from the "Catholic Democrats," which is an organization aimed at building up the Democratic Party while pretending to uphold Catholic teaching. The e-mail was about the upcoming meeting between President Obama and Pope Benedict, and included this:

"By meeting in the early days of this new administration, President Obama and Pope Benedict have signaled their intent to embark on a productive collaboration," said Dr. Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats.  "At a personal level, these two men share an expansive intellect and a love of learning.  But the real story of this meeting is the extensive common ground shared by the Vatican and this White House on confronting issues ranging from the devastation of poverty due to the world economic crisis, to healing the planet and promoting peace."

Regular readers will recognize the already-tired and less-than-true method ("The Kmiec Method"?) of claiming that the two men are almost twin brothers in thought, deed, and religious sensibilities because they "share" large swaths of "extensive common ground" on "issues" such as poverty, peace, and ecology. So what if Obama is the most pro-abortion president in history? He's against poverty! So what if Obama supports using tax dollars to fund abortions and contraceptives all around the world? He cares about the poor! So what if Obama is undermining a traditional understanding of marriage and saying that homosexuality is a grand things to live and support? He's fighting poverty!

Or, as Doug Kmiec did say, back in early 2008: "Beyond life issues, an audaciously hope-filled Democrat like Obama is a Catholic natural." Which I suppose is like saying of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford: "Beyond issues of marital fidelity and trust, he's a conservative natural."

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles, Excerpts, & Interviews:

• Authentic Freedom and the Homosexual Person | Dr. Mark Lowery
• Homosexual Orientation Is Not a "Gift" | James Hitchcock
• Contraception and Homosexuality: The Sterile Link of Separation | Dr. Raymond Dennehy
• Can I Quote You On That? Talking to the Media About Homosexuality and the Priesthood | Mark Brumley
• Human Sexuality and the Catholic Church | Donald P. Asci
• The Truth About Conscience | John F. Kippley
• Marriage and the Family in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae | Rev. Michael Hull, S.T.D.
• Viagra: It's Not Just for Old Guys Anymore | Mary Beth Bonacci
• Practicing Chastity in an Unchaste Age | Bishop Joseph F. Martino
• Kinsey: Dedicated Scientist or Sexual Deviant? | Benjamin Wiker

Comments

[Careful and patient explanation needed for the young]

The hardest thing for people with children is countering the constant message that if you don't support or approve of the gay lifestyle you are being intolerant and harshly judgemental.Young people find it very difficult and I know some Catholic teenagers who feel it is being cruel and intolerant to speak against homosexuality.It is important to explain to the young the clear distinction between recognising sin but loving the sinner and the positive alternatives the Church offers for people tempted by same sex attraction via Courage the organisation set up by Father Harvey.

[Bernie]

If God Himself called the act of homosexuality an ABOMINATION then why are we not saying what God has said. This is a SIN and destroys the dignity of a child of God. This is a sin of lust and evil. God loves all but it is the sin that we have to condemn and offer the joy of the natural order that our Creator has given us.

[Pete]

Carl,

How should we Catholics address two questions that I often hear:

1) Why is it not discrimination to oppose same-sex marriage rights?
2) Why should the state have any input at all in the defining of marriage or how it is recognized in society? Doesn't marriage itself precede the government's decree, and so, wouldn't it be best for the state to back out completely and let marriage be what it 'is'?

Thank you

[Alessandra]

What can i say...to face the most immediate side of the drama lets have a quear spelling bee class