‘Gay Marriage’: A Very Indelicate Matter
In my favourite film Kind Hearts and Coronets, cuckolded husband Lionel tells Louis Mazzini (Denis Price) that he wishes to speak to him about “a matter of some delicacy”. Louis, somewhat alarmed that his sins may have found him out, remarks in voiceover that whenever someone talks about a matter of some delicacy, they’re usually referring to a matter of extreme indelicacy.
There are occasions when such matters cannot be evaded.
When you think about what is involved, there must be very few subjects more indelicate than what is invariably referred to as “gay marriage”. The campaign for this is just warming up, and we are to have a referendum in May which looks at present as though it will sail through without difficulty. No one will talk about what is actually involved: if they did so, the sodomite lobby would denounce them as horrible coarse insensitive individuals, but a quite a few Irish people would wake up and realise what it is they are being asked to endorse.
The debate on RTÉ Radio One’s Morning Ireland today (Thursday) probably provided a foretaste of many more to come. Interviewer Audrey Carvill began by congratulating a homosexual who had just “married” his “partner” in Britain; and then asked Breda O’Brien, representing the No side, whether she approved of his action. This was a real pharasaical device, intended to wrong-foot her from the outset. If she said No, she would have looked uncaring and insensitive, but if she expressed approval she would have looked ridiculous. Audrey Carvill kept on pressing the question, interrupting and harrassing Breda in mid sentence. Mrs O’Brien kept her cool, and did as well as could have been expected under the circumstances. The homosexual was then allowed free rein to propagandise uninterrupted, appealing to everyone’s sense of fairness and begging them not to let the proposal fail because of public apathy.
Interviewers will never get to the heart of the matter. How I would love to hear one of them quizzing a militant homosexuals along these lines. “So you want ‘gay marriage’? Well, as you know, every marriage has to be consummated; otherwise it can be declared invalid. Now, can you please tell me how exactly would one consummate a homosexual marriage?” If this question were answered fully and truthfully it would clarify the minds of the public wonderfully. The absurdity of the proposal would be laid bare.
I very much hope that by the time the lawyers and civil servants have examined the measure more closely, it will prove to be more complex than the homofascists had thought..