CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Breaking Through the Pink Curtain

Nov 14, 2002

There are certain taboo subjects which in an age of Political Correctness are pretty much guaranteed never to see the light of day. Many such topics come to mind. But the most obvious candidate is homosexuality and anything even remotely critical of it. For the most part, the mainstream media avoids such coverage like the plague.

Of course that is not to say that the subject of homosexuality never appears in our secular press. It is there all right – constantly. But it is only pro-homosexual material (with rare exceptions), that seems to make it through. Anything remotely smacking of anti-gay rhetoric is off limits. There is no greater crime today, it appears, than to be intolerant in general and “homophobic” in particular. And homophobia of course has been taken to mean anyone or anything that disagrees with the pro-homosexual agenda.

Our Activist Courts

Examples of this new Pink Curtain are legion. Let me give a few recent examples as found in the mainstream press. High Court Justice Michael Kirby has been using every available opportunity lately to champion his pet cause: homosexuality. As one of our leading public homosexuals, he recently argued that the Family Court of Australia should become involved in same-sex relationships as well. His remarks were well covered in the press. Dissenting views, however, were hard to find.

There was one exception – sort of. Soon after he made these remarks, I was invited to take part in an hour-long Radio National debate about the issue. It was a typical ABC debate: I was the token conservative voice pitted against a less than neutral host, against Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls, against Tasmanian gay activist Rodney Croome, and against a progressive Macquarie University Law Professor who supported Justice Kirby’s proposals. Four or five against one is a good, fair debate in the eyes of the ABC and many other media outlets.

The debate itself was interesting. I tried to make the case that opening up the Family Law Court to any and every type of relationship would not only devalue and undermine the institutions of marriage and family, but would put every sort of relationship on an even keel, even though they clearly are not. And I asked, innocently enough, why we should stop with two men or two women in a same-sex relationship. Using Justice Kirby’s logic, why not include relationships involving three men? Or four women? Why not a football team? If we decide to radically redefine the family, let us at least be consistent.

Of course such reasoning was met by a chorus of indignation. Mr Hulls argued I was trying to turn the clock back to the 50s. The good law professor argued the same. To which I replied, “Since when has marriage and family only been around for a few short decades? It seems to me that any second-rate historian, anthropologist or sociologist can tell you that these institutions have been the norm in most societies throughout human history.”

And on the debate went. As it was also a talk back show, some callers were on side, but some were quite opposed to my point of view. But I suppose one can argue that at least a debate took place, even if it was a very one-sided affair.

Since we are discussing Justice Kirby, another recent example can be cited. He used the opening of the Gay Games in Sydney on November 2 to deliver another speech, again seeking to impose the homosexual agenda on ordinary Australians. He said that “we are a nation in the process of reinventing ourselves” and spoke of the “social revolution” we are now in. Both are true, but both are due to a radical homosexual lobby backed by activist judges and a sympathetic media. He went on to list his heroes: Alfred Kinsey, the American sexologist, Rodney Croome, Kerryn Phelps, and others who helped to remake society in their own image.

The only critical voice I could find on the Justice came from a columnist for the Australian, Janet Albrechtsen. In her November 6 column she referred to his activism and said: “Beware judges talking of changing community values. It usually means values haven’t changed. Rather, the judge wishes they had and believes that by announcing some change, the world will follow.” A brave woman indeed to make such remarks.

Lesbian Role Models

As another example of the homosexual juggernaut rolling along, consider the new biography of the Australian Medical Association President, Dr Kerryn Phelps. This well-known lesbian has decided to tell her story of how she left her husband and “married” her lesbian lover.

In one of the remaining few media outlets willing to occasionally critique the gay agenda, the Melbourne Herald Sun published an opinion piece by columnist Sally Morrell on October 23. In it she suggested that Dr Phelps may be less than an ideal role model, since she told her own 16-year-old daughter, concerning her relationship, to either like it or lump it. That is, she put her lesbian lover ahead of the interests of her own daughter.

I and a few others wrote in letters supporting the columnist, which were published on Oct 25. In my letter I wrote that Sally Morrell was quite right to argue that Kerryn Phelps is a poor role model, and a pretty poor mother at that.

I said it was quite disappointing that this “professional” lesbian couple decided to put their own selfish desires ahead of the very real needs of children. “But unfortunately”, I said, “this is just a reflection of a wider problem in society where everyone demands his or her rights, but refuses to recognise corresponding duties. Thus children are being left on the social scrapheap while adults indulge their various whims and passions. I greatly fear for our children in such a society.

“The truth is, not all lifestyles are equal. Any lifestyle that says that children are just a disposable commodity is not in our best interests. And another truth emerges here: sexual preferences are not private matters but have very real social consequences.”

On Oct 29 the Herald Sun printed a letter by Dr Phelps saying her critics were “ill-informed”, and that Morrell’s column was “disgraceful” and provoked “hatred”. But an interview with her daughter in that week’s New Idea repeated the idea that the daughter was treated – should I say it, disgracefully – by her mother. She said she was “screaming out for love and attention” when her mother “came out” but was treated like a troublemaker.

Safe Lifestyle?

As another example of how pro-homosexual sentiment reigns supreme in much of the media while criticisms are few and far between, consider the Melbourne Age. On October 30 it carried a front page story stating that Melbourne was in fact the gay capital of Australia, saying that its inner suburbs had more homosexuals than even Sydney. It seemed to me that this was not quite front page story material, and that the figures it used were quite suspect as well.

Interestingly, during the same period, a leading homosexual newspaper, the Melbourne Star, had published a front page story arguing that the Gay Games would result in an inevitable rise in Sexually Transmitted Diseases (October 17). With a bit of lateral thinking, I combined the two stories and shot off a letter to the Age. The letter I wrote was as follows:

“Your rosy picture of Australia’s gay scene gives one side of the story. A more realistic and sober assessment comes from the Melbourne Star, Melbourne’s leading gay newspaper. It recently featured a front page story warning of a major rise in Sexually Transmitted Diseases due to the Gay Games in Sydney.

“The Victorian AIDS Council/Gay Men’s Health Centre warned that Australia’s low syphilis levels could rise as a result of the influx of gay men and HIV-positive men. And it said the already rampant gonorrhoea epidemic could increase. The Health Promotion Team manager said that STDs were bound to rise, and that syphilis is unlikely to be prevented by condoms. He noted that syphilis can progress rapidly in HIV positive people.

“This is the other side of the story that needs to be told. This is not a safe risk-free lifestyle. It is just the opposite.”

Ironically, I was speaking that day on media bias, and I mentioned the letter to my audience. I suggested that either the letter would not get in print, or it would be severely edited. The latter in fact is exactly what happened.

Thus the next day my letter did appear, but only with the first and last lines! The entire heart of the letter, based on the gay newspaper article, had been deleted! Thus what was left was a letter which, because it was so truncated and decimated, appeared odd and judgmental. And sure enough, that is exactly what I was accused of a few days later. A letter attacking me appeared on November 2, complaining of “homophobia” and “discrimination”.

How very nice of the letter’s page editor to print a radically edited (and therefore misleading) letter of mine, and then conveniently use it as an excuse for printing letters criticizing me. Needless to say, when I wrote back to the editor, complaining, and asking that the original letter be printed in full, I was ignored.

In that letter which was never published, I asked my critic if he would still hurl charges of “homophobia” and “discrimination” knowing that the information in question came from the homosexual press!

Conclusion

Large slabs of the media will not touch the homosexual issue, at least not with a critical perspective. When it does cover the subject, it is usually sympathetic to it, and rarely are countering viewpoints given equal time. The sad truth is that the homosexual lobby has so successfully intimidated much of the mainstream media into silence and/or a censorious view of the issue, that a balanced and impartial assessment of it will seldom be found there.

Thus Political Correctness and the radical homosexual lobby have effectively stymied debate on this important social issue. Fear reigns supreme in much of the media. Fear of “offending” the homosexual lobby. Fear of being politically incorrect. Fear of being sued or taken to court by the various Equal Opportunity Commissions, discrimination boards, and vilification legislation. Free speech on certain issues like homosexuality is quickly and effectively all but disappearing. The Pink Curtain is well and truly up, and unless concerned citizens speak out against it, things will only get worse.

[1753 words]

Leave a Reply