Sunday, June 18, 2006

Propaganda, Not Well-Written

Poor Laurel Walker. Given a columnist slot by the JS and being a Lefty, she has to attempt to make a case for Homosex "Marriage" in only a few hundred words. Unfortunately, her attempt is so hackneyed and one-sided that it has 'propaganda' oozing from the get-go:

When his firstborn child, Nathan, arrived 25 years ago, David Henry wished only the best for his son - that he would find success and have the chance to do what he wanted in life.

Perhaps the most ham-handed and telling paragraph is the second:

Still tucked away in the Henrys' Town of Waukesha house is a favorite book he gave to his baby boy to read some day. Trained as an economist and now working in computer technology, David Henry picked "Free to Choose" by economists Milton and Rose Friedman.

Of course, that's followed by a disclaimer--that the Friedman's 'freedom' is not really related to Nathan's (or David's?) desire for Homosex "Marriage."

But it so happens that the economist's gold-ring of "choice" is the strongest argument mustered FOR Homosex 'marriage' (if you are a True Believer) and at the same time, the most significant fallacy. For the 'choice' here of Homosex marriage is not a 'choice' which benefits society, nor is it ordained by nature.

But Walker makes sure we get the picture:

While Nathan's mother is active in a Milwaukee support group for families and friends of gays and lesbians - more active in the cause than even Nathan - David said his activism has been limited to writing letters to legislators about government's maddening attempts to ban gay marriage and civil unions.

Gee, Laurel--you find it "maddening?" Wow. Surprise!! Here's another shocker:

Wisconsin's attempt for a constitutional amendment - we'll get to vote on it in a November referendum - is even more mean-spirited, I think.

David Henry says if this is an effort to defend marriage and the family, as proponents have said, then government would do better to stop divorce - which is just as "stupid" as the gay marriage ban.

Better yet, government ought to mind its own business and let loving committed couples join together as family.

It's safe to say that Laurel had a friendly meeting with the Henrys, eh?

It remains to be seen whether the 'second sentence' of The Amendment would actually prohibit conferring "health insurance, retirement benefits, bereavement leave for family, inheritance issues and hundreds more benefits," as Walker claims without substantiation. For openers, some of these benefits are conferred by private enterprise or through contract negotiations; and others can be legislated regardless of "civil union" moniker. While it is possible that the second sentence will prevent employers from being forced to provide the bennies, it will NOT deprive them of the right to grant them voluntarily.

But hey--little things like truth aren't too important to the Propaganda Machine.

The red herring of divorce, the "maddening, " "mean-spirited" stuff--it's gratuitous and not particularly helpful to Nathan's cause.

For the record, I've never been a fan of the Walter Williams school of economic morality; it's shallow and its consequences are literally inhuman. Constructing a society based purely on economics and covering the odiferous result with the perfume of "choice" is a fool's errand.

She shoulda stuck with just telling the story.


Mary said...

She shoulda stuck with just telling the story.

I think that's against JS rules.

Dad29 said...

It's not all about you, Allen.

Bottom line here is that you are asking for a State "blessing" of your union, which remains contra natura--and I think that the State cannot do that; that the State cannot arrogate that power to itself. In other words, the positivists cannot have their day.

At this time, your relationship is legal, strictly speaking--and it is tolerated by Wisconsin residents, myself included. That's not to say that I approve it--I also have moral concerns which are important--but I tolerate it.

And I wish you well. If we get into eschatology we may have more sharply-defined differences.

Dad29 said...

Well--dont' take it personally, but I'm of the firm opinion that one does not have a 'right' to act against nature, insofar as that usually has serious negative repercussions.

As to "positivists:"

To be brief (and potentially slightly inaccurate) Positive Law is that law which is man-made. Natural Law is that which is evident through nature, and/or which is common to ALL mankind (e.g., murder of innocents.)

Many positive laws reflect natural law--we have murder statutues.

In the case at hand, the "positive law" crowd is attempting to repeal "natural law," or at least to derogate it.

That's why you find that lots of folks of the Law-School Degreed variety are perfectly happy to see The Amendment get defeated. After all, they would like us to believe that ALL law worth obeying is man-made. Same applies, to a greater or lesser degree, to Intellectualoids and politicians, especially where those universes overlap.

By the way, this "positive law" disease is at the foundation of AlGore's quest to Restore the Planet through legislative means.

Won't happen, although I agree with those who firmly oppose waste and wanton destruction.