unabashed

By Diogenes ( articles ) | Sep 10, 2008

"The GOP Should Kiss Gay-Bashing Goodbye," says an editor at The New Republic, writing in the WSJ. James Kirchick affects to congratulate the RNC on the tolerance it displayed at its recent convention. In reality his op-ed is more of a warning shot than a good-faith compliment, but then reality is subject to linguistic warping by activists of Mr. Kirchick's temper. Mark Steyn has put it concisely: 

Language has been an important weapon in the gay movement’s very swift advance. In the old days, there was "sodomy": an act. In the late 19th century, the word "homosexuality" was coined: a condition. A generation ago, the accepted term became "gay": an identity. Each formulation raises the stakes: one can object to and even criminalize an act; one is obligated to be sympathetic towards a condition; but once it’s a fully-fledged 24/7 identity, like being Hispanic or Inuit, anything less than whole-hearted acceptance gets you marked down as a bigot. 

Consider the term "gay-bashing." Bashing should mean -- and once did mean -- the same as beating, and ought to be employed in the context of blackened eyes and broken jaws. So what does Kirchick offer us as an example of GOP gay-bashing at the 2004 convention? (squeamish readers should avert their eyes): 

"Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges," Mr. Bush declared from the podium at Madison Square Garden. 

I trust you're duly shocked. 

In the implementation of the gay political agenda, "bashing" has been progressively ramped up from something you did with a tire iron to something you do with an adjective (ironically, this hyperbole in the service of self-dramatization reinforces the stereotype of the pansy-as-shrieking-adolescent). If "the protection of marriage" counts as bashing today, we can be confident than insufficiently robust  enthusiasm for sodomy will count as bashing tomorrow. Mr. Kirchick complains that -- notwithstanding the GOP's tardy amendment -- there's far too much independence of mind out there regarding unnatural vice. The querulousness of gayspeak has a wry echo of W.C. Fields: someone put diversity in our "diversity."