IS THE GOOD MAYOR REALLY ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY?

Mayor David Garcia and the Waveland Board of Alderman recently passed a homosexual hospitality measure, a measure inferring that all that unavoidably comes with homosexuality, and the movement’s aims, also be accepted. The good mayor of Waveland, also last week publicly announced his acceptance of same-sex “marriage”.  And in his interview with WLOX, said, “We are proving to the country that our city is on the right side of history."

The implication of course from this worn out phrase used quite frequently by the President and left-leaning types is for others to give it up, quit the fight, accept their position, and all that comes with it.  It is a mere threat of sorts, a hollow one.  However, the good mayor’s claim to be on the right side of history says nothing about whether he is on the right side of the argument.

It is interesting that the other Mississippi cities in which these publicly gay-affirming, legally limp, measures have passed also have mayors all of whom are Democrats.  They are self-avowed lesbian Mercedes Ricks, (Magnolia), David Garcia (Waveland), Les Fillingame (Bay St. Louis), Pat Patterson (Oxford), Johnny Dupree (Hattiesburg), Parker Wiseman (Starkville).  Is this coincidental? Or a sociopolitical strategy?  Interestingly, recent efforts are underway by thinking citizens in Magnolia to have their measure rescinded.

Do these mayors hold differing personal and moral views? Or, are they political lemmings acting at the moral expense of their constituents, for it is indeed fashionable these days to unlink morals from jurisprudence and politics.  And is this the majority view of 6,700 Wavelanders or have their leaders hijacked their true opinions?

We can be sure a group of alcoholics, or for that matter a group promoting traditional marriage could never get a similar measure passed in Waveland?  But what about his side of history?

Like history in general, the good mayor’s side of history has a past, as well as a boding for the future.  Looking in the rear view mirror of the mayor’s wagon we see that….

·    Christian adoption organizations have been driven out of the much needed child adoption programs.

·    Freedom of speech has been restricted, and their jobs lost, by high-profile persons simply opining that marriage is between one man and one woman.

·    Service industry professionals are being coerced to abandon their values and participate in value-expressive same-sex ‘marriage’ ceremonies they conscientiously oppose (conscience rape).

·    In a 15 year period encompassing the 80s, forty of the top Canadian and U.S. male figure skaters died of AIDS.  The U.S. Figure Skating Assn blamed and declared it was ‘society’s problem’, not the skaters’ (New York Times).

·    Boy Scouts of America has lost equal access to public facilities and programs because of its position on open homosexuality.

·    Christian student organizations at some state universities have been denied official recognition because they require officers and voting members to adhere to traditional Christian teachings on sexuality.

·    Men who have sex with men, less than 2% of the general population, are responsible for 70% of HIV infections.  If heterosexuals were as promiscuous as homosexuals, the US would be living the African experience with HIV/AIDS.

·    Where same-sex marriage is legalized, it is taught in schools, with or without the permission of parents.

·    Current and past social studies reveal the proportion of pedophiles who are homosexual are greater than heterosexuals by a ratio of 3:1.

·    In Canada (10 years same-sex “marriage”) religious organizations are coerced into renting church-owned facilities to those who oppose and proselytize against their faith’s tenets.

There are others.

What might the mayor’s side of history bode for the future?  Yogi Berra once said, “It’s tough making predictions, especially when it comes to the future.”  But let’s look ahead anyway.

We now hear of espoused “throuples”, three-person couples, (New York Magazine) being proposed as a legitimate marriage arrangement and with it the push to have children raised by more than two parents. There is nothing, in principle, about this redefinition of marriage that would prevent any number of people “in love” with each other from claiming to be ‘married’ – a same-sex quadruplet, a co-ed quintuplet, etc. -- to also include the multi-parenting of children and their being commodified.  This is the vision of the good mayor.

We can expect the permanence principle of marriage to also be dispensed with.  There is now being proposed “wedleases” (Washington Post 2013) (a corollary to wedlock) in which a marriage is understood to be temporary.  This vision holds that you should be able to lease a marriage like you would an apartment, or car – along with however you want the children to be managed (as in a commodity subordinated to the adult romance).  We can presume this is the good mayor’s cultural vision, having embraced this side of history.

We can expect ‘same-sex’ marriages to be “monogamish” (New York Times 2011), a term suggesting the number two be retained but that spouses should be free to have sexually open relationships, without coercion or deceit – and that these arrangements also include the raising of children.  This dispenses with monogamy, an integral element of marriage, which by the way, was responsible for bringing civilization to the fore.

The mayor says he’s taught his own children not to judge, perhaps confusing the difference between judgment and discernment.  But does he himself have a judgment about whether every child deserves a mother and father?  Does the mayor have any compunction about making fatherhood and motherhood optional?

Sometimes we say things we later regret.  We’ve all been there.  I’m sure the mayor has, probably all of them have.  I doubt though he, and his councilmen, would ever rescind the measure passed, since politics, not morals, appears to be the engine that’s moving this train.

The Human Rights Campaign with the ACLU now come to our good state with large sums of money, coming with legal rope, duct tape, and hand-ties, and like bullies who pick on smaller kids, first lean on small towns to create the perception that “everyone” (Glory Be!) is changing their minds about sodomy and same-sex “marriage” being the new norm.

If you’re thinking your freedom, whether it be civil or spiritual, will not be affected by a “letting them live and let live” approach, then you must talk to the Colorado baker, New Mexico photographer, and Oregon florist, who were/are being sued and forced (consciences raped) by same-sex couples, (and soon, throuples) to participate in their wedding ceremony, laden with unwanted values, and sodomy-like, shoved done their freedom-thirsting throats.  You can be sure every baker, florist, and wedding photographer in the country will be targets to be visited by this social tyranny, boycotts and all.

Yes, there’s a lot of money in this project.  And as we speak and as money talks, there’s probably a lot of it talking to the next two Coast cities led by Democrat mayors in Ocean Springs and Pascagoula, being lobbied to pass this “we-love-the-gay-community’s-vision-for-our-culture" measure. 

The good mayor may turn out to be on the right side of history.  But, as we know, history is an arbitrary enforcer, and one day we will learn who’s held the high ground with this issue.  So, judging from its past, and looking to what lies ahead, do you think it’s a good idea to continue down this road?  Or might it be more reasonable to slam the breaks on this wagon, away from the self-absorbing, self-loving, and libertine path it’s on, and toward that which is sane, sensible, life-giving, and true?