One of the more deceptive and ugly debates in America today surrounds the issue of whether churches should sanction and governments permit the "marriage" of homosexuals to each other.
Many of the arguments put forth by the left on this issue are rife with gross distortions and outright lies, couched in language that has become increasingly virulent and serves to perpetuate the dishonesty.
One noteworthy example of this is the word bigot, which is increasingly being used to defame those who do not believe marriage between homosexuals should be validated in church or public policy.
A bigot, by definition, is one who is obstinately and intolerantly devoted to their opinions and prejudices.
On the first part of this definition, it's probably fair to say that most people who disagree with homosexual behavior or re-defining marriage as the union of two people of the same sex are somewhat obstinate about whether they wish to be involved with such behavior or otherwise facilitate it. After all, having a preference for the conduct that defines homosexuality over that of heterosexuality isn't quite the same as one's preference of wheat bread over rye.
It's the second part of this definition that makes its application in this context such a disgrace. The term 'prejudice,' which in large part defines bigotry, is a term that practically concerns itself with the deprivation of rights. More technically, it also revolves around uninformed opinions or hostility.
It goes without saying there are some whose disagreement with homosexuality manifests itself in outright hostility and violence, and that is unfortunate. But for the vast majority of people, their disagreement with the prospect of homosexual marriage is predicated on well-considered, deeply held conviction, much of it rooted in theology shared by several billion people. To define religious conviction as bigotry is to advocate religious persecution.
Then there's the attempt to cast marriage as a universal right when plainly it is not. Marriage is variously regulated by the several states, with prohibitions on marriage involving age, bloodlines, polygamy and so forth. It's also instructive to note that nowhere in the Constitution do the words 'marriage,' 'marry,' 'wed,' or other such terms appear.
All of this matters not to those in the vanguard of the militant homosexual lobby. The political landscape on homosexual marriage has become so vicious among those on the left that virtually any opinion is now fair game to be classified as bigotry. Should this linguistic tactic bear more fruit in the political arena, it's a good bet other groups wanting to advance a political agenda based on sexual behavior will use it.
Percolating just beneath the surface of this argument is what the radical homosexual lobby doesn't want you to hear; the abolition of the "bourgeois family" and "bourgeois marriage."
The need to eliminate these two institutions - more contemporaneously regarded as the traditional or nuclear family - are detailed at length in The Manifesto of the Communist Party, written in 1847 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.
Here's a little bit about what Marx and Engels had to say about the "bourgeois family": "The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry."
As for "bourgeois marriage," the Communist Manifesto reduces wives to "instruments of production," and generally regards marriage as a form of prostitution. "Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common," wrote Marx and Engels, who also advocated, "an openly legalized system of free love."
Like the abolition of private property rights, progressive taxation, and government control of industry and media, the destruction of the American concept of family and marriage is part and parcel of the Marxist principles espoused by communism.
Whether those in the militant homosexual lobby regard themselves as adherents of Marxism or communism is difficult to say; I'm guessing that only the most candid among these radicals would admit to such beliefs, with the majority choosing to publicly deny their ideology and dress it up as something it is not, in the hope of furthering their agenda.
As for those in the homosexual lobby who honestly do not classify themselves as students of Marx or Engels, may they take comfort in knowing they comprise the class of "useful idiots" which Soviet Communism founder Vladimir Lenin found so valuable in perpetuating his brand of dictatorial tyranny, for they are no less valuable to those who would foist such tyranny on America.
Scott Hogenson is executive editor of CNSNews.com.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this commentary.