Dissecting Sexual Revolutionary Propaganda

May 29th, 2014

As I have said many times in my speeches (available at the Ruth Institute podcast page), the Sexual Revolution is irrational and its goals are impossible.  Therefore, those committed to the Sexual Revolution must also commit themselves to a steady stream of propaganda to over-write the basic facts of reality. This sometimes includes the subtle or not-so-subtle rewriting of history.

Today’s exhibit in understanding Revolutionary Propaganda comes to us from the Religion News Service, which describes itself this way.

The Religion News Service aims to be the largest single source of news about religion, spirituality and ideas. We strive to inform, illuminate and inspire public discourse on matters relating to belief and convictions.

So I find it odd, to say the least, to find an organization with this mission, taking for granted the arguments of Sexual Revolutionaries in an article, described as an “analysis.”

Let me confine myself to one particularly noticeable re-writing of history.

Written by Kevin Eckstrom, the Editor in Chief of the Religion News Service, the article claims in the section called, “A problem of overreach:”

Conservative groups resisted moves to compromise on a half-measure like civil unions; (Tony) Perkins’ organization (Family Research Council) calls civil unions nothing more than “a slow-motion surrender.” And that, said veteran gay marriage proponent Jonathan Rauch, was a critical mistake.

The author provides no context for cultural conservative Perkins’ comment, and he gives pro-gay Jonathan Rauch the last word. By doing this, the author suggests that Perkins’ assessment is incorrect, without actually taking responsibility for proving this, or even stating that his assessment is incorrect.

However, a small amount of research would show that Perkins’ analysis was correct. A reasonable observer would conclude from the behavior of the Gay Lobby that they do indeed regard civil unions as stepping stones, not compromises.

Consider California. Very ample domestic partnership provisions were in place by September 2003.  (Same sex couples have had hospital visitation rights in California since AB 26 passed in 1999.) But domestic partnerships, solving virtually all of the practical problems that same sex couples might encounter, were not good enough for the Gay Lobby.

In February 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom issued marriage licenses to same sex couples in his city. This began the process that led to the in re Marriage cases, which overturned the statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Only after observing the progress of that lawsuit through the courts, did the people of California put Prop 8 on the ballot in 2008, as a defensive measure.  In retrospect, an honest observer might think the advocates of natural marriage were overly naïve and too passive.  But Religion News Service Editor-in-chief Kevin Eckstrom reports Jonathan Rauch’s opinion as if it were the Gospel Truth.

They (cultural conservatives) set an impossible goal for themselves by saying from day one that the goal of success would be not one gay marriage on not one square inch of American soil, and that was never going to happen.

Who? Who ever said “not one gay marriage on not one square inch of American soil?”  And after the Gay Lobby went for “the whole enchilada” of gay “marriage” less than six months after the passage of sweeping domestic partnership benefits, why should any reasonable person believe that compromise was possible?

I don’t know what Kevin Eckstrom believes in his heart of hearts. I don’t know whether he is a Dupe or a Useful Idiot or was just careless on this particular day. But one cannot escape the conclusion, that wittingly or unwittingly, this uncritical reporting of conservative “overreach” is not news, and certainly not “religion news.  Rather, it is an attempt to rewrite history in accordance with the narrative of the Gay Lobby.


Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute. If this article was helpful to you, please go to the Ruth Institute Splash Page, and choose two ways of being involved with our mission. Consider becoming a monthly donor. Every little bit helps!


Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
Comments are closed.