Not long ago, I spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the preeminent gathering of conservatives in the nation. Our panel discussed the confluence of abortion supporters and homosexual activists in public policy. I gave an account of the international legal strategies for making abortion and sexual orientation legally binding human rights.
It’s little known how human rights are ginned up these days. Certain terms and ideas, seemingly innocent, are floated into the U. N. conversation and into U. N. documents. Then, in short order, new human rights are claimed under what is called “customary international law.”
On abortion, this is done through the repetitious use of the phrase “reproductive health.” It has been repeated hundreds of times in dozens of U. N. documents, most of them non-binding on states. Proponents say this repetition has created an international right to abortion. Of course, this is false.
In the same way, the homosexual movement hopes to make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes in human rights law. It has been heavier sledding for them than for abortion proponents because opposition to their cause includes a majority of Member States of the United Nations.
But homosexual activists have tried for years simply to get the phrase “sexual orientation and gender identity” into U. N. documents. They have largely failed. The best they have been able to do is to have this phrase promoted in a “statement,” no more than a press release really, issued by the French government and signed by sixty-five countries back in 2008.
Not long after, there was a debate in the U. N. General Assembly about extra judicial killing and summary execution. This is one of dozens of annual resolutions the General Assembly produces each fall. Proponents tried and failed and then succeeded in getting “sexual orientation and gender identity” into the document as a protected class.
Opposition to the measure centered not on support for killing homosexuals, though this is what proponents said to the global media. Opposition centered on resistance to including this new and undefined term (does anyone know what “gender identity” really means?) into a U. N. document.
Everyone knows the strategy has little do with protecting homosexuals from execution but rather with introducing a new term that can then be turned into an elaborate justification for a new international legal norm. Member States know this and how the game is played. So they have resisted from square one.
Last summer the activists were at it again at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. A seemingly non-controversial vote was taken on the preparation of a report on violence against homosexuals. It barely passed. All it would be is a report, nothing more. But the U. S. government and others trumpeted it as an historical breakthrough for human rights. See how this is played?
I explained all this at CPAC. A young swain filmed my talk. I figured opponents would be there. I even suggested that those who support homosexual rights, but who were also American patriots, may even stand with me and others who believe these issues should not be decided in the ugly sausage factory at the United Nations but on our own shores.
Within a day, a video of a small portion of my talk was up on Right Wing Watch with the rather remarkable headline “Austin Ruse Condemns Efforts to Stop Violence Against LGBT Community.” Of course, this was scattered all over the homo-sphere. Right Wing Watch put it up on YouTube. It was called the ugliest talk at CPAC.
And the comments? They really had me pegged. I am really a self-hating homosexual. One of them knew this by the way I moved my eyes. It is amazing how the homosexuals like to use the word homosexual as an epithet. Self-hating indeed.
The video even found its way onto a “Catholic” blog called Catholics for Equality, a group of dissenters from Church teaching. They accused me of speaking out against efforts to stop homosexual executions.
None of these shameful charges is true; in fact, all are false and slanderous. It would have been easy to get the entire video and see that my arguments were about the proper and improper development of international law.
But this was small beer compared to what happens to Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, Peter Wolfgang, or others who are on the front lines defending traditional marriage every day. They get actual death threats. What happened to me is nothing compared to hate-filled rage directed at supporters of things like Proposition-8, or to a little girl who posted a YouTube video objecting to a troubled little boy being accepted into a Girl Scout Troop in Colorado.
The girl’s mother is an activist trying to stop the headlong leftward drift of the Girl Scouts. The girl put the video up on YouTube and it immediately went viral in the homo-fascist community. Her family came under immediate, brutal attack that lasted for weeks. The little girl’s life was threatened. The family was badgered at home. The father was badgered at work. They basically had to go into hiding and had to hire a lawyer to get the video taken down from dozens of websites.
In the end, the homosexuals got what they wanted. They shut that little girl up! Let’s hope that mainstreet America will come to know these tactics, which are more suitable for Kristallnacht than twenty-first century America.
I am tempted to predict that there is a dark night coming, except I fear we may already be there.