Hear the audio version here
This is my one request – at least for now. Can we all, Republicans, Democrats, conservative, liberal, libertarian, all of us – just agree to stop talking in euphemisms? It’s crippling us. And I’m not saying I never do it. The whole practice has become ingrained in our culture. We dumb down our language or we coat it in euphemistic terms that don’t seem to “hurt” as much in an effort to make our positions and ideas sound more palatable. Basically, we try to trick people into saying they agree with us – or at least that they are comfortable with what we’re saying and touting – without them really knowing the truth.
Perfect example came this week with Michelle Obama’s speech to a couple Democrat fundraisers in New York City. Here’s the line of the report that sent me to the top of Mount Frustration:
First Lady Michelle Obama told Democratic Party donors at two New York City fundraisers Monday that the two Supreme Court justices her husband appointed would be important in cases involving “privacy,” and the right to “love whomever you choose.”
See what I mean? What does Michelle Obama mean when she says cases involving “privacy?” Is there any schmuck out there that doesn’t realize she means abortion? Is there anybody out there that thinks this means anything else? Then why can’t Michelle say it?
And the same thing goes for this nonsense about the right to “love whomever you choose.” Think about how silly that is. Obviously that is referring to the left’s willingness to open the door to types of behavior previously regarded as immoral and improper. That’s what she really believes in here. The truth is that those of us who are conservative and hold to traditional, Christian morality, believe everyone should love each other. And we believe that you are not showing someone love by subjecting someone else to the physical, emotional or spiritual consequences of sexual immorality – whether that’s homosexuality or adultery or polygamy or whatever.
Michelle is conflating loving someone with opening the door to whatever they want to do sexually. But I’m guessing she would have limits on that, don’t you? I’m guessing she would still forbid certain types of sexual expression – whether that’s bestiality or polygamy. I’m guessing she would condemn promiscuity or adultery, don’t you think? And if an adulterous couple came and demanded that the government condone their adulterous relationship by conferring hospital visitation rights or marriage rights to their “expression of love,” I’m guessing Michelle would balk.
So that’s why I’m saying, let’s put away the euphemisms. Let’s state what we believe. Let’s put it out there. Let’s defend it and then let it stand or fall on its own without trying to trick people into thinking they agree with us. If Michelle believes it’s okay to dismember human children in the womb, she should say so and defend it. If Michelle believes it’s improper to condemn the immorality of homosexuality but still condemns the immorality of other sexual conduct, she should explain what standard she uses. I’m not demanding she agree with me. I’m asking that she – and all of us, frankly – have the courage to state plainly what we believe.