The Vigilance Vigilantes
By Mark Steyn National Review EXCERPT
He who controls the language shapes the debate: In the same week the Associated Press announced that it would no longer describe illegal immigrants as illegal immigrants, the star columnist of the New York Times fretted that the Supreme Court seemed to have misplaced the style book on another fashionable minority. I am worried, wrote Maureen Dowd, about how the justices can properly debate same-sex marriage when some dont even seem to realize that most Americans use the word gay now instead of homosexual. She quoted her friend Max Mutchnick, creator of Will & Grace:
Scalia uses the word homosexual the way George Wallace used the word Negro. Theres a tone to it. Its humiliating and hurtful. I dont think Im being overly sensitive, merely vigilant.
For younger readers, George Wallace was a powerful segregationist Democrat. Whoa, dont be overly sensitive. Theres no tone to my use of the word Democrat; I dont mean to be humiliating and hurtful: Its just what, in pre-sensitive times, we used to call a fact. Likewise, I didnt detect any tone in the way Justice Scalia used the word homosexual. He may have thought this was an appropriately neutral term, judiciously poised midway between gay and Godless sodomite. Who knows? Hes supposed to be a judge, and a certain inscrutability used to be part of what we regarded as a judicial temperament. By comparison, back in 1986, the year Scalia joined the Supreme Court, the chief justice, Warren Burger, declared there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy. I dont want to be overly sensitive, but I think even I, if I rewound the cassette often enough, might be able to detect a certain tone to that.
Nonetheless, Max Mutchnicks vigilance is a revealing glimpse of where were headed. Canada, being far more enlightened than the hotbed of homophobes to its south, has had gay marriage coast to coast for a decade. Statistically speaking, one-third of 1 percent of all Canadian nuptials are same-sex, and, of that nought-point-three-three, many this last decade have been American gays heading north for a marriage license theyre denied in their own country. So gay marriage will provide an important legal recognition for an extremely small number of persons who do not currently enjoy it. But, putting aside arguments over the nature of marital union, the legalization of gay marriage will empower a lot more vigilance from all the right-thinking people over everybody else.
Mr. Mutchnicks comparison of the word homosexual with Negro gives the game away: Just as everything any conservative says about anything is racist, so now it will also be homophobic. It will not be enough to be clinically neutral (homosexual) on the subject or tolerant, bored, mildly amused, utterly indifferent. The other day, Jeremy Irons found himself musing to a reporter on whether (if the issue is unequal legal treatment) a father should be allowed to marry his son for the purpose of avoiding inheritance taxes. The vigilance vigilantes swung into action:
Oscar-winning actor Jeremy Irons has sparked outrage, reported the Independent in London, by suggesting that same sex marriage could lead to incest between fathers and sons.
Outrageous! That isnt exactly what he said, but, once sparked, the outrage inferno was soon blazing merrily:
Jeremy Irons strange anti-gay rant, read the headline in Salon.
I wouldnt say he was ranting. He was languidly drawling, as is his snooty Brit wont, and fighting vainly the old ennui, as if he would rather be doing anything than another tedious media interview. Indeed, he even took the precaution of averring that he didnt have a strong feeling either way.
You sick bigot theocrat hater! Not having a strong feeling is no longer permitted. The Diversity Celebrators have their exquisitely sensitive antennae attuned for anything less than enthusiastic approval.
<<<SNIP>>>
Of course, if you belong to certain approved identity groups, none of this will make any difference. The Reverend Al Sharpton, who famously observed that Africans of the ancient world had made more contributions to philosophy and mathematics than all them Greek homos, need not zip his lips any more than Bilal Philips, the Toronto Islamic scholar who argues that homosexuals should be put to death, need fear the attention of Canadas human rights commissions. But for the generality of the population this will be one more subject around which one has to tiptoe on ever thinner eggshells.
I can see why gays might dislike Scalias tone, or be hurt by Irons lack of strong feelings. But the alternative that there is only one approved tone, that one must fake strong feelings is creepy and totalitarian and deeply threatening to any healthy society. Irons is learning, as Carrie Prejean learned a while back, that liberals arent interested in your opinion, or even your sincere support, but only that you understand that theres one single, acceptable answer.
<<<SNIP>>> Instead, the relentless propagandizing grows ever more heavy-handed: The tolerance enforcers will not tolerate dissent; the diversity celebrators demand a ruthless homogeneity. Much of the progressive agenda on marriage, immigration, and much else involves not winning the argument but ruling any debate out of bounds. Perhaps like Jeremy Irons you dont have strong feelings on this or that, but, if you do, enjoy them while you can.
By Mark Steyn National Review EXCERPT
April 5, 2013 5:00 P.M.
He who controls the language shapes the debate: In the same week the Associated Press announced that it would no longer describe illegal immigrants as illegal immigrants, the star columnist of the New York Times fretted that the Supreme Court seemed to have misplaced the style book on another fashionable minority. I am worried, wrote Maureen Dowd, about how the justices can properly debate same-sex marriage when some dont even seem to realize that most Americans use the word gay now instead of homosexual. She quoted her friend Max Mutchnick, creator of Will & Grace:
Scalia uses the word homosexual the way George Wallace used the word Negro. Theres a tone to it. Its humiliating and hurtful. I dont think Im being overly sensitive, merely vigilant.
For younger readers, George Wallace was a powerful segregationist Democrat. Whoa, dont be overly sensitive. Theres no tone to my use of the word Democrat; I dont mean to be humiliating and hurtful: Its just what, in pre-sensitive times, we used to call a fact. Likewise, I didnt detect any tone in the way Justice Scalia used the word homosexual. He may have thought this was an appropriately neutral term, judiciously poised midway between gay and Godless sodomite. Who knows? Hes supposed to be a judge, and a certain inscrutability used to be part of what we regarded as a judicial temperament. By comparison, back in 1986, the year Scalia joined the Supreme Court, the chief justice, Warren Burger, declared there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy. I dont want to be overly sensitive, but I think even I, if I rewound the cassette often enough, might be able to detect a certain tone to that.
Nonetheless, Max Mutchnicks vigilance is a revealing glimpse of where were headed. Canada, being far more enlightened than the hotbed of homophobes to its south, has had gay marriage coast to coast for a decade. Statistically speaking, one-third of 1 percent of all Canadian nuptials are same-sex, and, of that nought-point-three-three, many this last decade have been American gays heading north for a marriage license theyre denied in their own country. So gay marriage will provide an important legal recognition for an extremely small number of persons who do not currently enjoy it. But, putting aside arguments over the nature of marital union, the legalization of gay marriage will empower a lot more vigilance from all the right-thinking people over everybody else.
Mr. Mutchnicks comparison of the word homosexual with Negro gives the game away: Just as everything any conservative says about anything is racist, so now it will also be homophobic. It will not be enough to be clinically neutral (homosexual) on the subject or tolerant, bored, mildly amused, utterly indifferent. The other day, Jeremy Irons found himself musing to a reporter on whether (if the issue is unequal legal treatment) a father should be allowed to marry his son for the purpose of avoiding inheritance taxes. The vigilance vigilantes swung into action:
Oscar-winning actor Jeremy Irons has sparked outrage, reported the Independent in London, by suggesting that same sex marriage could lead to incest between fathers and sons.
Outrageous! That isnt exactly what he said, but, once sparked, the outrage inferno was soon blazing merrily:
Jeremy Irons strange anti-gay rant, read the headline in Salon.
I wouldnt say he was ranting. He was languidly drawling, as is his snooty Brit wont, and fighting vainly the old ennui, as if he would rather be doing anything than another tedious media interview. Indeed, he even took the precaution of averring that he didnt have a strong feeling either way.
You sick bigot theocrat hater! Not having a strong feeling is no longer permitted. The Diversity Celebrators have their exquisitely sensitive antennae attuned for anything less than enthusiastic approval.
<<<SNIP>>>
Of course, if you belong to certain approved identity groups, none of this will make any difference. The Reverend Al Sharpton, who famously observed that Africans of the ancient world had made more contributions to philosophy and mathematics than all them Greek homos, need not zip his lips any more than Bilal Philips, the Toronto Islamic scholar who argues that homosexuals should be put to death, need fear the attention of Canadas human rights commissions. But for the generality of the population this will be one more subject around which one has to tiptoe on ever thinner eggshells.
I can see why gays might dislike Scalias tone, or be hurt by Irons lack of strong feelings. But the alternative that there is only one approved tone, that one must fake strong feelings is creepy and totalitarian and deeply threatening to any healthy society. Irons is learning, as Carrie Prejean learned a while back, that liberals arent interested in your opinion, or even your sincere support, but only that you understand that theres one single, acceptable answer.
<<<SNIP>>> Instead, the relentless propagandizing grows ever more heavy-handed: The tolerance enforcers will not tolerate dissent; the diversity celebrators demand a ruthless homogeneity. Much of the progressive agenda on marriage, immigration, and much else involves not winning the argument but ruling any debate out of bounds. Perhaps like Jeremy Irons you dont have strong feelings on this or that, but, if you do, enjoy them while you can.
