In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal former president Bill Clinton has come out of the closet in support of homosexual marriage. In 1996, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Why the change? He says that 1996 “was a very different time.”
This tells me that Clinton governed in terms of opinion polls. In 1996, opinion was against homosexual marriage, therefore, he was against it. In 2013, opinion polls show a different view. There’s nothing startling in this type of moral shift. Politicians do it all the time.
With 17 years of pro-homosexual propaganda hitting us every day, I’m not surprised that opinions have shifted. Let me ask the poll question, and I bet opinion would shift back hard the other way. Remember, low-information and no-information voters are now in the majority.
But let’s get back to Clinton and the real reason for his shift.
First, Hillary is setting her sites on a 2016 presidential run. This means she’s lining up all the special interest groups ahead of time. Homosexuals, while they make up no more than three percent of the population, have great influence and deep pockets.
Bill can now speak in support of her candidacy without having to answer questions about signing DOMA.
Second, Clinton’s support of homosexual marriage removes the stigma of his sordid sexual affairs. How can he be against consensual homosexual sex when he and his liberal friends and media sycophants kept saying that his sexual exploits were only about sex and it was consensual? Sex is no big deal, no matter who’s doing it to whom.
The Lewinsky scandal didn’t emerge until 1998, two years after Clinton signed DOMA. Once he got caught in the Lewinsky tryst, he was damaged goods. Supporting homosexual marriage makes his extra-marital sexual encounter just another sexual encounter.
If homosexual marriage is now accepted when in 1996 it wasn’t, then surely a healthy male with a sexual appetite like Clinton’s can’t be denied similar sexual freedom. Clinton’s sexual rendezvous with Monica Lewinsky was a big deal 17 years ago, but the moral goal posts have been moved since then. With homosexual marriage now accepted, who’s going to judge a president who only did what came naturally?
Third, Clinton helped America lose its moral compass. He now has to justify it. Instead of repenting, he’s succumbed to the deviancy. Again, this is an old story that makes literature what it is today.
The late New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan described this phenomenon in a 1993 paper as “Defining Deviancy Down,” defined by Suzanne Fields as “lowering the bar for what was once considered deviant behavior, giving a pass to things society once scorned.” Notice the date.
Moynihan started from Emile Durkheim’s proposition that there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can
“‘afford to recognize’ and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the ‘normal’ level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard. This redefining has evoked fierce resistance from defenders of ‘old’ standards, and accounts for much of the present ‘cultural war. . . .’”
The long-term effects of lowering the moral bar are not immediately seen or understood. But it doesn’t take a degree in psychology or social work to see the devastating consequences of moral surrender to the bleating sheep of moral discontent.
Ascent to homosexuality is not new. Some of the great civilizations of the world tolerated, even extolled the virtues of homosexuality. As any 8th-grade history student knows, the remnants of their civilizations are little more than tourist attractions today.
America is headed in the same direction.