Bryan Fischer
Time to stand athwart National Review and yell "Stop!"
By Bryan Fischer
William F. Buckley, the founder of National Review, was a staunch opponent of redefining marriage to include sodomy-based couplings. His heirs at National Review? Not so much.
When Buckley was asked by the New York Times in 2004, at the end of his tenure at NR, why he opposed same-sex marriage, he said flatly, "It is extraconstitutional, marriage being a union between opposite sexes usually intending procreation."
One of the squabbles over this year's CPAC (The Conservative Political Action Conference) has to do with the refusal, for the second year in a row, of event organizers to allow GOProud to serve as a co-sponsor. GOProud aggressively supports virtually the entire homosexual platform, including same-sex marriage. It opposes a federal marriage amendment and is pushing for DOMA to be overturned, the very law that protects the right of states to deal with the marriage issue as they see fit.
Although GOProud is described by the Huffington Post as a "conservative (sic) gay rights group" it is nothing of the sort, for the simple reason that supporting the infamous crime against nature cannot possibly be a conservative value.
Problematically, increasing numbers of self-identified conservatives are calling for abject surrender in the battle over special rights based exclusively on sexually deviant behavior. This is largely based on the belief that we have lost the millennial generation on this issue, it's hopeless, nothing can be done, so let's just quit, etc.
Distressingly, even the good folks at National Review have fallen for this swill, and have run the white flag up the mast. LifeSiteNews has assembled various concession speeches from NR luminaries such as Jonah Goldberg, the editorial board and Daniel Foster.
Goldberg said last Friday that CPAC's move to "toss the gays over the side" represented "a knee-jerk and insecure threat." I have great admiration for Mr. Goldberg, and read almost everything he writes. However, on this one he's just plain wrong. Given the heat CPAC is taking over this decision from fellow conservatives who ought to be in its camp, it represents courage rather than weakness.
Then, in an unsigned editorial, which naturally has Rich Lowry's imprimatur on it, National Review said they "regret that CPAC has excluded the gay conservative group GOProud." Again, they fall for the lie that one can be a conservative and promote immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual behavior at the same time.
Then Daniel Foster weighs in, baldly and incorrectly asserting that GOProud is "conservative on the important issues," including "social issues." Thus Foster dismissively kicks the institution of marriage to the curb, saying it's not "important," and in so doing kicks to the curb vulnerable young children who are the true victims of a culture with no moral compass.
What these folks seem to forget is that millennials grow up. They do not stay 29 forever. They get married, have children, start to fret about the sewer our culture has become, and by the time they're 40, they start to understand what the fuss is all about. Just about the time they're looking for champions to defend the family, they discover all the girly-men in the movement have scampered over to the camp of the enemy.
Plus, in what world does it make sense to allow our public policy positions to be determined, not by the wisest and most mature, but by the youngest, least mature and least experienced people in the room?
This is like saying, "You know, we've lost this entire generation of third graders on studying math and learning to read. They're just flatly opposed to it, they're never going to like it or appreciate it, and if we don't junk math and reading, we'll lose these kids forever." Letting third graders direct curriculum choices is no smarter than letting juvenilish boys and girls direct the platform decisions of a major political party.
These folks at National Review ought to, and in fact, do know better. They should be ashamed of themselves. And if they are not, William F. Buckley, were he still around, would be ashamed enough for all of them.
© Bryan Fischer
March 7, 2013
William F. Buckley, the founder of National Review, was a staunch opponent of redefining marriage to include sodomy-based couplings. His heirs at National Review? Not so much.
When Buckley was asked by the New York Times in 2004, at the end of his tenure at NR, why he opposed same-sex marriage, he said flatly, "It is extraconstitutional, marriage being a union between opposite sexes usually intending procreation."
One of the squabbles over this year's CPAC (The Conservative Political Action Conference) has to do with the refusal, for the second year in a row, of event organizers to allow GOProud to serve as a co-sponsor. GOProud aggressively supports virtually the entire homosexual platform, including same-sex marriage. It opposes a federal marriage amendment and is pushing for DOMA to be overturned, the very law that protects the right of states to deal with the marriage issue as they see fit.
Although GOProud is described by the Huffington Post as a "conservative (sic) gay rights group" it is nothing of the sort, for the simple reason that supporting the infamous crime against nature cannot possibly be a conservative value.
Problematically, increasing numbers of self-identified conservatives are calling for abject surrender in the battle over special rights based exclusively on sexually deviant behavior. This is largely based on the belief that we have lost the millennial generation on this issue, it's hopeless, nothing can be done, so let's just quit, etc.
Distressingly, even the good folks at National Review have fallen for this swill, and have run the white flag up the mast. LifeSiteNews has assembled various concession speeches from NR luminaries such as Jonah Goldberg, the editorial board and Daniel Foster.
Goldberg said last Friday that CPAC's move to "toss the gays over the side" represented "a knee-jerk and insecure threat." I have great admiration for Mr. Goldberg, and read almost everything he writes. However, on this one he's just plain wrong. Given the heat CPAC is taking over this decision from fellow conservatives who ought to be in its camp, it represents courage rather than weakness.
Then, in an unsigned editorial, which naturally has Rich Lowry's imprimatur on it, National Review said they "regret that CPAC has excluded the gay conservative group GOProud." Again, they fall for the lie that one can be a conservative and promote immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual behavior at the same time.
Then Daniel Foster weighs in, baldly and incorrectly asserting that GOProud is "conservative on the important issues," including "social issues." Thus Foster dismissively kicks the institution of marriage to the curb, saying it's not "important," and in so doing kicks to the curb vulnerable young children who are the true victims of a culture with no moral compass.
What these folks seem to forget is that millennials grow up. They do not stay 29 forever. They get married, have children, start to fret about the sewer our culture has become, and by the time they're 40, they start to understand what the fuss is all about. Just about the time they're looking for champions to defend the family, they discover all the girly-men in the movement have scampered over to the camp of the enemy.
Plus, in what world does it make sense to allow our public policy positions to be determined, not by the wisest and most mature, but by the youngest, least mature and least experienced people in the room?
This is like saying, "You know, we've lost this entire generation of third graders on studying math and learning to read. They're just flatly opposed to it, they're never going to like it or appreciate it, and if we don't junk math and reading, we'll lose these kids forever." Letting third graders direct curriculum choices is no smarter than letting juvenilish boys and girls direct the platform decisions of a major political party.
These folks at National Review ought to, and in fact, do know better. They should be ashamed of themselves. And if they are not, William F. Buckley, were he still around, would be ashamed enough for all of them.
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
