Saturday, June 03, 2006

Why can't they just admit they're bigots?

Remember Charles "Chuck" Colson? He once said, "I'd walk over my own grandmother to re-elect Richard Nixon." And he did just about that.

Colson was one of the Watergate Seven and among those responsible for the break-in at the Democratic National Committee, Watergate offices. He was considered Richard Nixon's hatchet man and held a position in Nixon's White House similar to that of Karl Rove's today - that of a political counsel. He was recently described as Karl Rove's "spiritual ancestor", something which Colson does not dispute.

When the net was closing on the Watergate conspirators, Nixon included, Colson suddenly found religion. After spending seven months in prison he developed a fundamentalist ministry focused on changing prison conditions and promoting both prisoner and prison reform. Despite claims that his discovery of religious salvation was too "convenient" to be believed at the time, Colson has followed through with some admittedly good work.

Except that he's a raving wingnut and just as virulent a social conservative as he was a Nixon worshipper.

Over at, Colson has written an unbelievable piece attempting to make a connection between same-sex marriage and crime entitled (if you can believe this) Marriage and Crime. The deadly connection.

This is just one reason that I am so passionately in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment, which is coming up for a vote in the Senate next week. It declares that marriage will consist of one man and one woman. Passage of this constitutional amendment is essential to stop the courts from throwing out state marriage laws and referenda banning gay marriage passed by the people.
That's the standard Christian conservative line and it warrants nothing more than a "so what?". It's the next paragraph where it starts to get bizarre.

And the amendment is essential to protect the sanctity of marriage. Now, some don't like the moral or philosophical arguments for a marriage amendment. Others dislike dealing with a contentious social issue at all or simply do not like amending the Constitution. My response to these people is, "Do you want to continue to see our prisons fill with kids who have been raised like feral children in the wilderness? Do we want to risk further damage to the integrity of the family?"
Umm, that's about the point where a rational person might start to scratch the head. If you're finding the connection a little difficult at this point, wait for it. It gets better.

Some people then ask, "How would gay marriage affect the sanctity of heterosexual marriage?" The answer comes from Europe. Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution makes a compelling case that same-sex "marriage" will undermine traditional marriage by increasing the gap between marriage and parenthood. Once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, Kurtz writes, "that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with."
Stanley Kurtz. The same guy who admitted to having no rational argument but intends to keep it going anyway. The same guy whose Harvard degree was based on taking individual psychiatric differences and applying it to large groups - something which has been thoroughly debunked. The same guy who doesn't dare show his research on subjects like this because it will be torn to shreds by the first undergrad to get hands on it. And if you'd like to read more about Kurtz, take a look here.

Despite Kurtz's reputation for kissing off facts in favour of his own opinions, Colson relied on Kurtz proffered evidence which is patently false.

For example, prior to 1993, when Norwegian courts imposed same-sex "marriage", Norway had a low out-of-wedlock birth rate. The traditional link between marriage and parenthood was still in place. But once same-sex "marriage" was legalized, Norway's illegitimacy rate shot up as the link was broken and cohabitation became normal. The same thing is now happening in Holland and Canada. Where gay "marriage" is approved, the number of couples in heterosexual marriages precipitously declines.
Really?! Well, Mr. Colson and Mr. Kurtz, that's very interesting. If it were true it might even have supported your ridiculous theory. But it isn't true, so it serves only to destroy your argument and demonstrate that you are grasping at straws to provide camouflage for your homophobia.

In 1981, Canadian couples who chose common-law relationships over formalized marriage constituted six percent of all heterosexual couples households. By 2001 that number had increased to 14 percent. Same-sex marriage was not permitted by federal statute until June of 2005. Colson and Kurtz are suggesting that Canada has seen a sudden drop in heterosexual marriages with no statistics to support the claim. In fact, the only numbers they have come from the period before same-sex marriage was legal.

So, there's another reason and it isn't because gays and lesbians can now legally marry.

Ironically, once gays have the right to marry, few take advantage of it. Evidently, they want the right to marry only because they do not want heterosexuals to have something they can't have. And they are willing to destroy the institution for everybody else.
No statistical evidence to support the assertion and then the suggestion that our notorious Watergate criminal actually has the ability to understand the minds of gay people. If he had the ability to read minds why did he have to send a crew to snoop through the DNC offices for intelligence? In any case, it end with this:

The result is going to be more broken families - and more crime.
That's not just a stretch, it is now a fallacious presumption: Heterosexual couples won't want to get married because gays and lesbians are allowed, (even though Colson says most don't bother), therefore the institution is now destroyed. Colson also fails to acknowledge that most of the prisoners from "broken homes" are the result of divorces - not common-law break-ups.

Better that Chuck Colson sticks with what he's good at. If he finds prison reform is not enough of a challenge, the White House can always use another criminally-minded extremist.

No comments: