Conservative Biggies Shrug/Squirm at High Court’s Gay Marriage Hokum

By Steve Pauwels 
For those puzzling over why sensible people have lost the “marriage” issue to the homosexual bullies: I just listened to Laura Ingraham’s analysis of the Supreme’s knotheaded decision to shoot down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and deny Californians the right to uphold the traditional meaning of the institution. I guess she agrees with Scalia’s dissent — I say “I guess” because, although Laura typically, acerbically leaves scant room for doubt about where she stands on any issue, it’s kind of hard to tell here.
The outspokenly pro-life, fiercely Catholic, usually take-no-prisoners Ms. Ingraham clearly doesn’t want to focus much on this matter. Quite often, there is an evident reluctance on her part to engage the question whenever it makes the headlines. Could it be because — as she publicly has stated on numerous occasions — her brother is homosexual? There’s gotta be some explanation because the normally fire-breathing talk host goes a bit squishy on many matters “gay”. 


She and a lesbian caller, for instance, shared a warm-and-fuzzy moment chatting — that’s the word to use: “chatting” — about this morning’s Court ruling. This particular lesbian, a Vermont mother raising her son with her same-sex “partner”, didn’t overly care if the federal government conferred upon them the “married” designation. “You sound cool,” remarked Laura, skating chillingly over the fact that this woman was, essentially, still promoting the poisonous notion that FATHERS are dispensable.
Two moms, two dads, one of each — what’s the difference? Is that it, Laura?
Those who push that lie are “cool”? Not in my book, nor in THE book; not ever.
Laura Ingraham, probably, would prefer “marriage” officially maintain the meaning it has always had. However, in between the wink-wink bumper music she’s been playfully running since the Court “came out” with its marital-warping nonsense (Frank Sinatra’s “Love and Marriage”, Abba’s “Dancing Queen”, etc.) and her chummy back-and- forths with callers who make a mockery of the importance of moms AND dads, it’s clear this whole shebang really isn’t that big a deal to her.
And remember: Laura Ingraham would be ranked one of the premiere “Socially Conservative” voices on today’s media landscape.
Similarly, while Glen Beck, across the AM dial from Ms. Laura, pretty much deplored the Court’s finding immediately upon its announcement, he also herniated himself for moments on end affirming how many personal, respectful relationships he has with homosexuals. Why, he’s hired a bunch of homosexual employees! Even a same-sex “married” couple !! (See my column deploring the exasperating Christian/Conservative habit of acting defensively and ashamed while presenting our principles.)
We get it, Glen: You don’t “hate” homosexuals – that’s good. We shouldn’t “hate” anyone.

This bogusly imputed “hatred”, of course, has nothing to do with denouncing a lifestyle scores of millions consider destructive, perverted, unbiblical and bad for our nation. It has nothing to do with emotionally wounded homosexuals’ admittedly pitiable pot-banging for constantly being patted on the head and told they’re wonderful; told so at all costs, including the transmogrification of civilization’s foundational institution .
Yes, you really can “hate the sin” yet “love the sinner”; in fact, you should do so. But so what? That’s irrelevant to whether a troubled minority ought to use the instrumentality of Washington, D.C. to redefine the language, to pitch history out the window, to turn the Constitution on its head for the sake of sparing their hurt feelings.
Anyway, someone needs to remind Glen Beck that his gooey efforts to show himself big-hearted aren’t going to win over the thuggish Lavender Legion. The radical same-sex lobby will despise him no matter what he says; unless, admittedly, he does a U-Turn and affirms homosexual couplings are equal in every way to –no, actually superior to — those colorless, haggard heterosexual unions.
The nation is about to find this out with a rainbow-tinged vengeance – as churches will be informed, sometime in the not too distant future, that they MUST make available sodomite wedding ceremonies; as private businesses like florists, bakeries, photographers, etc. will increasingly find themselves strong-armed into providing services for “same-sex couples”. (I say “increasingly” because, though the latter is already occurring, it will be doing so more and more predictably; count on it.)

“Conservative spokesmen” like Laura Ingraham and Glen Beck, both of whom I dig, nonetheless bear a measure of the blame for this turn of events. Howcum? They seem equally — or more — concerned about the witty music they can play in the wake of these execrable high court holdings or in demonstrating their “tolerant” bona fides to intolerant Progressives than about denouncing phony marriage.
There’s nothing frivolous or amusing or vaguely acceptable about these judicial travesties. Fully in order is outrage anchored in the very souls of those who care about the survival of the family and of America. The overruling priority of those who insist on defending real marriage ought not to be showing that we’re still good guys.
As long as “conservatives” don’t get that? We lose on this issue.