Liberals and Democrats (or is that redundant?) have an elegant way of stifling debate. They simply use one-word accusations in an attempt to shut down opposition.

Don’t believe in affirmative action? You’re racist!

Want English as our national language? You’re xenophobic!

Think male and female brains are wired a bit differently? You’re sexist!

So what are you when you happen to agree with the Supreme Courts in two states — widely separated geographically and culturally — that upheld bans against homosexual marriage? Well, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean thinks you’re bigoted.

In a statement made in response to the New York Court of Appeals decision that New York’s constitution does not guarantee the right to marriage for same-sex couples, Dean said:

As Democrats, we believe that every American has a right to equal protection under the law and to live in dignity. And we must respect the right of every family to live in dignity with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law. Today’s decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end the effort to achieve this goal.

As that essential process moves forward, it is up to the State legislature to act to protect the equal rights of every New Yorker and for the debate on how to ensure those rights to proceed without the rancor and divisiveness that too often surrounds this issue. [emphasis added - TD]

You see, the problem as I see it is this — in a society such as ours, it is inevitable that sooner or later you’re going to have two groups with diverging interests. Sooner or later, you’ll hit a flashpoint, such as is happening today with homosexual “marriage”. On one hand, you have those such as myself who hold traditional values, and believe that homosexuality is an immoral lifestyle.

On the other hand, you have the hedonistic crowd that says today that they just want equal rights for homosexuals. But that just begs the question, “What about tomorrow?” Once you open the floodgates to homosexuals marrying, what about my bigoted stance against polygamists? Those who practice bestiality? Incest? Should we permit fathers and daughters, or mothers and sons, to marry?

And what of Mr. Dean’s accusation of bigotry? Why is the New York Supreme Court bigoted against homosexuals, but Mr. Dean is not bigoted against those — including Christians — who are traditional moralists? Mr. Dean is saying without speaking the words that he’s right and everyone else is wrong. That’s the only way it can be.

Gosh, aren’t Dems lucky to be led by such an all-knowing persona? To know right from wrong and do right every time? Well, guess what, Howie? You blew it. You could’ve acknowledged the ruling (after all, the NYSC said that the legislature did have the authority to rectify the situation and allow homosexual marriage, if they so desired), or at the very least kept your big, fat, over-used mouth shut!

Sorry. I guess I just showed how bigoted I am against those with big, fat over-used mouths, didn’t I?

Others blogging this issue:

• Curiouser and Curiouser says “Dean Speaks - People Cringe“
• Christfidelis calls the New York ruling “surprising and welcome“
• Watersblogged! things we can save the word “marriage”

Also linked at Stop the ACLU 

Technorati: homosexual marriage, New York, Georgia

TD