Marriage Equality: The Prosperous Pol vs. The Gay Pauper

Marriage Equality: The Prosperous Pol vs. The Gay Pauper May 8, 2013

I’m with the gay pauper on this one. And so is the Catholic Church. Think about that for a moment.

The Washington Post, see, published a story a few days ago about about a billionaire hedge fund manager working hard to bring the Republican Party out of the dark regarding marriage equality. His name is Paul E. Singer, and in the piece he’s quoted as having said,

“We are heartened to see many politicians in both parties moving in the right direction on this. Our job is to let them know they have plenty of like-minded friends, activists and party leaders who will stand with them.”

“Ultimately, this fight is about basic equality and individual liberty — both conservative principles. But for those who remain unconvinced, state-by-state evidence that marriage equality does no harm and actually strengthens families and the institution of marriage should put doubts to rest and pave the way for more conservatives to join this growing movement.”

You can read the whole story here.

As for the gay pauper over at We Defend Traditional Marriage – and We’re Gay, here’s what she had to say today.

As a gay woman, I appreciate traditional families. I grew up in a traditional family. My parents’ brothers and sisters founded traditional families. Traditional families make our society stronger, because they work better than any alternative so far devised.

The redefine-marriage thing really means that traditional marriage and the traditional family will be abolished in law and replaced by some government-approved alternative. But traditional marriage and families are so ingrained in every human culture that these attempts cannot succeed fully even if every nation were to turn fully totalitarian to be able to enforce the new marriage/family substitute.

Good point.

You know what else I wonder? Who is the billionaire hedge fund manager/legal eagle/power broker working to bring marriage reality to the rank and file of  either political party?


I reckon we’ll have to make do with the pillar of truth, aka the Catholic Church.

Which, come to think of it, reminds me of something G.K. Chesterton wrote back in 1926,

“The next great heresy is going to be simply an attack on morality; and especially on sexual morality. And it is coming, not from a few Socialists surviving from the Fabian Society, but from the living exultant energy of the rich resolved to enjoy themselves at last, with neither Popery nor Puritanism nor Socialism to hold them back… The roots of the new heresy, God knows, are as deep as nature itself, whose flower is the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eye and the pride of life. I say that the man who cannot see this cannot see the signs of the times; cannot see even the skysigns in the street that are the new sort of signs in heaven. The madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow but much more in Manhattan – but most of what was in Broadway is already in Piccadilly. (GKC, G. K.’s Weekly, June 19, 1926; quoted in Maycock, The Man Who Was Orthodox, 123).”

Thus spoke the prophet Chesterton.


Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

2 responses to “Marriage Equality: The Prosperous Pol vs. The Gay Pauper”

  1. Gay Pauper here: it seems that the wealthy love these social experiments such as ‘marriage equality’ because they don’t have to see what the results of these experiments are among the ordinary people. Just the cohabitation-culture social experiment has left so many children born into broken homes and shuttling around from household to household, especially on the holidays.

    And the poverty that so many of these social experiment victims experience make the problems so much harder to deal with. Which is why we should have a say in these things rather than letting the well-off opinion makers do our thinking for us.

  2. A long time ago we gave up trying to make everyone think alike about homosexuals. That was never the issue – the issue here, and now, is that “marriage” is sacred and that this holy union belongs to those who cherish marriage, as GOD designed it, for one man and one woman. Very simple.

    For homosexuals, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community have created a different lifestyle and, even designed different names for their gender (s) as one was not enough. They needed at least the 4 Initials – LGBT – and maybe more to come. That is their choice. I would like to suggest they design their own union, give theirs a name, and do their own thing, but not intrude on our sacred marriage. Is that too much to ask? We can promise not to steal their names.

    I know this is too simple. It would end a lot of nonsense because frankly I don’t think anyone cares what homosexuals do, or how they do it, anymore. But there are those of us, Christians, and even non-Christians, who want to keep marriage sacred.

Close Ad