THE MARRYING KIND

http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/3762/30

Thursday, 24 February 2011

The trick in this biz is never to be right too early. Kathy Shaidle writes:

   Remember during the gay ‘marriage’ debate, we were scolded: ‘Nobody’s talking about polygamy, you bigoted hicks’?

Why, yes. Yes, I do. Steyn in The Western Standard, September 2004. Headline:

   It’s Closer Than They Think.

   The activists roll their eyes and go into "Oh, come off it, you can't be serious" mode. Like the chichi gay couple from New York who've built their dream home in rural Vermont, they don't want any other incomers muscling in. Gay marriage, they assure us, is the merest amendment to traditional marriage, and once we've done that we'll pull up the drawbridge.

   Sorry, but it's not going to work like that. If you can get 'em past the don't-be-so-ridiculous stage, the gays point out that there are no constituencies clamouring for polygamy and bestiality. That's true in the latter case... But there's a very obvious constituency for polygamy, and it says something about the monumental self-absorption of the gay marriage crowd that they seem unaware of it.

Steyn in Maclean's, April 2009:

   Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, the former Supreme Court justice, remains confident the drawbridge is firmly up. “Marriage is a union of two people, period,” she said in Quebec the other day. But it used to be a union of one man and one woman, period. And, if that period got kicked down the page to accommodate a comma and a subordinate clause, why shouldn’t it get kicked again? If the sex of the participants is no longer relevant, why should the number be?

   Ah, well, says Mme L’Heureux-Dubé, polygamists don’t enjoy the same societal acceptance as gays. “I don’t see a parade of polygamists on Ste-Catherine Street,” observes the great jurist, marshalling the same dazzling quality of argument she used back in her days as the Supreme Court’s most outspoken activist on gay issues.

CTV News, February 2011:

   Polygamous Muslims Carefully Watching BC Case. 

Fancy that! They might not be parading down Ste-Catherine Street (yet), but there will be many more takers for polygamy than there will ever be for gay marriage. Boutique markets pave the way for dominant brands: As the artful coinage of "Islamophobia" suggests, Islamic supremacists are happy to avail themselves of the opportunities opened up by gays, Jews and others they despise. Just as Islam has been the biggest beneficiary of Europe's post-war Holocaust guilt and its attendant embrace of "multiculturalism", so polygamous Muslim men will be be the biggest beneficiaries of the gay moment and its redefinition of social institutions.

One more - from Maclean's in 2008:

   The folks who call my book "alarmist" accept that the Western world is growing more Muslim (Canada's Muslim population has doubled in the last 10 years), but they deny that this population trend has any significant societal consequences. Sharia mortgages? Sure. Polygamy? Whatever. Honour killings? Well, okay, but only a few. The assumption that you can hop on the Sharia Express and just ride a couple of stops is one almighty leap of faith. More to the point, who are you relying on to "hold the line"? Influential figures like the Archbishop of Canterbury? The bureaucrats at Ontario Social Services? The Western world is not run by fellows noted for their line-holding: look at what they're conceding now and then try to figure out what they'll be conceding in five years' time.


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot